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

May 19, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-May-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 19 May 2005 Jeudi 19 mai 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(GÉRANCE DES PRODUITS)

PAYDAY LOANS ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES PRÊTS

SUR SALAIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(GÉRANCE DES PRODUITS)

PAYDAY LOANS ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES PRÊTS

SUR SALAIRE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

REFINERY CLOSURE

SOCCER EXCHANGE

MISSISSAUGA YOUTH WEEK

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

NURSES

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

BOB HUNTER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TYNDALE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

& SEMINARY ACT, 2005

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (ONTARIO) ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LA COMMISSION ONTARIENNE

DE DÉLIMITATION DES CIRCONSCRIPTIONS ÉLECTORALES

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

DEFERRED VOTES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO GENERATION

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

TORONTO LEGISLATION

JUSTICE SYSTEM

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

STUDENT DROPOUT RATE

PLANT CLOSURE

HIGHWAY 406

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO BUDGET

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

ONTARIO FARMERS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FILM CLASSIFICATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE CLASSEMENT DES FILMS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(GÉRANCE DES PRODUITS)

Mr. Miller moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 195,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to the stewardship of products and of the packages or containers used for products /

Projet de loi 195, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui a trait à la gérance des produits et des emballages ou des contenants utilités pour

ceux-ci.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Miller, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I had originally planned on a private member's bill that would enable a deposit-return system in Ontario

to help the province to meet its waste diversion goal of 60% by 2008. In Ontario, we actually have a very successful deposit-return system at the brewers' retail, which actually has a recovery rate

of 96% of beer bottles. I have previously introduced a private member's bill that would require the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to implement a deposit-return system, and I'm aware that other

provinces, like BC, have deposit-return programs for liquor and wine bottles.

I decided to expand my private member's bill to introduce the concept of product stewardship after meeting a constituent of mine, Dr. Jim McTaggart-Cowan. He

came to see me about another environmental issue, and we discussed my desire to see a deposit-return system in Ontario. Dr. McTaggart-Cowan is a scientist. He worked in government in Ottawa and for

a number of years in British Columbia, and he was familiar with the product stewardship programs in British Columbia. He suggested that I expand my private member's bill to include the concept of

product stewardship, which could enable a deposit-return system but could do much more. I would sincerely like to thank Dr. McTaggart-Cowan for all the assistance he has given to me.

And while I'm thanking people, I would like to thank my intern, Nicola Hepburn, who is the lone spectator here this morning watching from up in the gallery. She

was of great assistance to me.

So what is product stewardship? It's a management system based on industry and consumers taking full responsibility for the products they produce and use, from

their inception through to their final reuse or recycle state. It's cradle-to-cradle management. The way it works is that government, on behalf of consumers, has three supportive roles.

First, it identifies which products it wants embraced, establishes targets for product capture and charges industry with the responsibility of forming a

management board and preparing stewardship plans. Second, it assists industry by putting in place regulations to support the collective industry approach and ensures a level playing field for all

corporations involved in the relevant sector. Third, it approves stewardship plans, monitors industry progress and ensures that plans are altered to achieve overall objectives.

Through this product stewardship approach, government moves away from funding, at taxpayers' expense, waste management. Instead, it holds industry responsible

for the full life cycle of a product but leaves it to industry to find the most cost-effective and efficient way to achieve it, assisting where necessary and desired.

Let me illustrate how this bill could be applied to beverage containers. First, government designates beverage containers. Then government establishes a recovery

rate of, say, 85% in three years. It charges industry with the responsibility of forming a management board, which prepares a stewardship plan. Government approves and monitors the stewardship

plan, which, in this case, includes a deposit-return system. If industry doesn't meet the target of 85% recovery, it must make changes to the plan. In the case of a deposit-return system, the most

likely thing you would do would be to increase the deposit.

Product stewardship works because industry comes up with the solutions. They know their business best, and they will come up with solutions that are both

cost-effective and that get the job done. Deposit-return systems work because there is an incentive to return the product for the deposit and those who end up paying for this system are the

polluters: the 15% in the example I just gave who didn't return their containers.

Let me illustrate the benefits of the deposit-return system currently in use in British Columbia. An analysis of the cost and benefits of the beverage container

recovery systems in Canada for the year 2000 completed by CM Consulting in 2002 made the following key findings.

In BC, the beverage industry incurred no cost related to the non-alcohol container recovery program in 2000. In 2000, Encorp Pacific Canada, the program steward,

on behalf of the non-alcohol beverage industry, recorded a net surplus of $5,087,318. Consumers contributed less than one cent per unit purchased to offset the costs of the deposit-return program

for non-alcoholic beverage containers in BC. In 2000, wasting beverage consumers -- that is, those who chose not to return the containers for the deposit -- contributed 7.2 cents per unit

purchased. As I say, that's a polluter penalty.

In comparing the relative environmental impact of a deposit-return program with an optimum curbside collection program -- that is, the best curbside collection

program -- it was found that the current British Columbia deposit-return system had far superior environmental performance in all categories investigated, despite utilizing a best-recovery scenario

for a curbside system. Specifically, an optimum curbside system would recover 40% less material than the current deposit-return system, or 8,500 short tons less material, in British Columbia. An

optimum curbside system would divert 50% less material from landfill, occupying an additional 70,000 cubic yards of landfill space, than the current BC deposit-return system.

Compared to the present deposit-return system, the reduced recycling rates attributable to an optimum curbside program, and the lack of scavenging, would result

in an estimated 46% increase in beverage container litter annually. That translates into an additional 2.6 million containers. And I would ask, have you gone for a walk in an Ontario ditch lately?

Effectively, we have 50% more litter around the roads of Ontario than in BC.

The present deposit-return system program is estimated to save 180,000 barrels of oil annually by replacing virgin material with recycled material as a

feedstock. The decreased recovery rates attributable to substituting the present deposit-return system with an optimum curbside collection system would result in the usage of an additional 74,000

barrels of oil. If BC had the optimum curbside recovery collection system, Ontario's system, instead of the deposit-return system, they would release 12,000 more tonnes of carbon into the

atmosphere.

In the year 2000, BC recovered 61% of glass bottles, compared to 45% in Ontario, 73% of PET, compared to 16% in Ontario -- that's probably why we have so much

plastic in our ditches -- and 84% of aluminum cans, compared to 50% in Ontario.

A 1998 study undertaken by Angus Reid for McConnell Weaver, The Deposit Program in BC: Attitudes and Behaviour, states, "There is a high level of support for the

deposit program across the province of BC. Almost all (96%) of British Columbians think the deposit program is a good idea. The main reason for their support of the program is that the program

gives people an incentive to recycle. The inconvenience of returning containers for the deposits appears to be only a minor concern."

Today, six of 10 provinces in Canada have full deposit-return programs for all beverages except milk: BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and

Newfoundland.

Deposit-return systems work. This bill enables a deposit-return system and could be applied to any product.

Let's look at paint. In BC, where paint is a designated product, it has changed the way they sell paint. Here in Ontario, our system is biased toward larger

containers. When you buy the four-litre container, it is cheaper than if you buy one litre, so we usually buy four litres. Who doesn't have a garage full of partly filled paint cans, and where does

that paint end up? In BC, product stewardship has changed the way they sell paint. There are more water-based paints. In some cases, you can bring your own container and have it filled.

A 2003 BC government

summary report looks at the paint stewardship program, which covers paint, solvents, flammable liquids, pesticides and gasoline. It is run

by Product Care, a national, non-profit stewardship association made up of 100 brand owners. Product Care's membership includes manufacturers, distributors and retailers. In 2003 -- I'm going to

summarize -- they collected 5,683,000 equivalent litre containers of paint; they gave away 107,000 litres in a paint exchange program; flammable liquids collected were 121,000 litres; pesticides

collected were 31,000 litres. The way they used that was that 4.6% of the paint was given back to consumers, 66% was recycled/reprocessed as paint used in concrete manufacture, 29% was used for

energy recovery through fuel blending, 0.2% was incinerated and 0% was landfilled. The flammables were 100% fuel-blended for energy recovery. All the metal containers were recycled for scrap metal

and all plastic containers were recycled. Funding for that particular program was through eco fees paid by member industry brand owners.

Three provinces in Canada have paint stewardship programs. They are BC, Nova Scotia and Quebec. I believe it is time we expanded our product stewardship programs

in Ontario. I ask for all members' support for this private member's bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to participate in private members' debate. Let me first congratulate Norm

Miller, the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, for introducing an excellent bill.

A couple of personal comments. I still remember when I was first elected to city council back in 1990. My first experience back then with waste management was

the three Rs: reduce, recycle and reuse. The general public back then had no conception of what the three Rs were all about and how important they would be for the future of waste management for

Ontario and probably throughout the whole world.

We had in Niagara Falls a landfill of our own that we owned. It was on Mountain Road, and it had been a landfill that everything was put into; whether it be

paint cans, tires, fridges, stoves, they were just put into the landfill because no one at that time really understood or realized the importance of waste management. Unfortunately, during my first

three or four years on council, the landfill became full and we found out that we couldn't utilize it any more. Two things happened. One was, at the municipal level, the cost for waste management

escalated because we had no tipping fees; it was our landfill. Secondly, and even more seriously, what happened was we found out that the landfill was having -- I'm going to use the word "leakage."

There were materials coming out from the landfill and actually getting into some of the residential areas. We had two things happen: We lost our landfill and our tipping fees, and we now had to pay

for it because we had to move to another location, and we had products in our landfill causing problems with residents. The point I'm making is that had something like this particular bill been in

place and had we the wisdom, we would have found out and realized how important our landfill was, the public would have understood the significance of recycling, and we may still have a landfill to

this day.

The other thing I really recall is that my wife and I went to visit my daughter who lives in the Cayman Islands for the first time. She had been there for about

seven months, and we arrived on a Monday. I think it was on a Wednesday or Thursday when my wife Helen said, "Gee, I should do her laundry. It's been sitting here," and I thought, "Oh, I'll wash

down the car and I'll do some other things outside." Anyway, my daughter came home and the first thing she said was, "Where is the laundry?" My wife said, "Oh, we did it all." She said, "You don't

understand how important it is that you learn to appreciate the things you have here because you live on an island." The first thing she started talking about was recycling and how, down there,

many times when you go grocery shopping or you get products, you don't have all of these packages. They have a system in place down there where if you do get packages, they're returned to a

specific location so they're properly recycled. It's the same thing with electricity. She educated us how down there they appreciate the importance of electricity, how to conserve it, when to use

it and when not to use it, something that our government is now working on and is, through the Minister of Energy, taking forward to the public.

I still remember that there was all types of opposition to the three Rs. The public back then, when you suggested that they'd have to put things in a blue box

that would have to sit out front and you'd have to organize your garbage, the reaction wasn't very positive. Today, I know in my community, and I'm sure it's the same everywhere else, we don't just

have a blue box; we now have a grey box and a box for composting meats and those types of materials. In my community, every other week different-coloured boxes go out. I'm just amazed now how well

and, I guess, how educated the public has become in understanding the importance of this.

I think this bill is another step forward. We've done a lot as a government already, and this bill is just going to add on to it. So I just wanted to take a

couple of minutes to congratulate the member for bringing it forward. The deposit-return system, as he said, exists already, for example, with the breweries, but this is another opportunity to

enhance that in some of the other sectors like the tire industry and the packaging industry. This is a great opportunity, so my congratulations to him. I'm certainly going to be supporting this

bill.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today to join in the debate regarding Bill 195, which my colleague from Parry

Sound-Muskoka has brought forward, and to also thank Nicola, his intern, for all the hard work they do. I've certainly benefited from my intern, Bec, and I want to thank them for working with

us.

The issues surrounding our society's creation of materials and what we do with these materials when we are finished using them has been a topic of discussion in

the Legislature and by municipal governments across the province for many years. It creates heated debate in many communities; I know certainly in mine it's always a topic of discussion. I'm not

sure when the first time "NIMBY" was used. I had to ask what a NIMBY was, but it was "not in my backyard" and, to hazard a guess, it had do with landfill sites.

The concept of businesses accepting responsibility for the management of waste generated by their products is a hot issue, and my colleague has brought forward a

progressive amendment and bill today. Packaging makes up about 25% of the weight of the residential waste stream. Packaging stewardship is a concept by which industry, governments and consumers

assume greater responsibility for ensuring that the manufacture, use, reuse, recycling and disposal of packaging has a minimum impact on the environment.

Both the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka and I represent ridings that boast the most beautiful scenery in Ontario, and I think I can speak for both of us when I

say that landfills are not as pretty to look at as lakes and trees. I know I have a controversial land site that's right beside the Scugog River in Lindsay. But landfills are part of our lives here

in Ontario, despite the efforts at recycling that already occur throughout the province. We simply create too much waste. Packaging stewardship could help us reduce the amount of waste we

create.

The city of Toronto is filling up landfills in another country and filling our air with exhaust fumes as it's hauled away by the truckload. I'm sure members

representing areas to the west of Toronto have some of their own thoughts about the trucks speeding down the highways, and many of us are concerned about what is going to happen if the border ever

closes to the trash.

I think that's what my colleague is speaking about. We need to look ahead and plan ahead and be better stewards. We, as consumers and businesses or

manufacturers, are filling up our landfills too quickly. Businesses, and consumers as well, need to be educated about the benefits of finding better ways to package their products, and even

additional uses that products can be put to before they reach landfills. We, as government representatives, need to look long and hard at ways to reduce the environmental impact of disposing of

waste and to monitor the impact of landfills that are already in place. I know from my own riding how much having a landfill nearby can affect residents, and I worry about the environmental impact

of locating landfills too close to the natural features that we have.

One key waste diversion is product design. Designing a product with the intention of reusing or recycling its components will ensure that there are aftermarkets

for the material at the end of the product's useful life. Today we have an aftermarket for aluminum, paper, glass, some types of plastics and I think some types of used tires, which are commonly

found in many parts of Ontario. The blue box program has been tremendously important, and the producers of these products deserve praise for their willingness to respond to the call to become

stewards. Between 1996 and 2003, blue box tonnage increased by 47%, outstripping population growth by 27%.

In the future, we need to develop aftermarkets for additional materials. The creation of these aftermarkets in turn will create an economic incentive to taking

effective environmental action. Stewardship is a very important concept, not just in terms of packaging but in terms of our natural environment. All of you have heard me speak of the closure of the

Frost Centre, and one of the most important things they did was teach the people about stewardship of the land and what they could do to become good stewards. We're hoping there will be a reopening

of the Frost Centre.

In terms of protecting the natural environment, it was not really necessary to convince people why they needed to be concerned about stewardship; it was just

important to show them how. We need to build that type of concern about stewardship within the business community.

Legislation on stewardship waste diversion must be based on sound principles that include: all users of the specific material type should be treated equally; the

method of diverting waste from disposal should not be predicated on the type of product that is in the packaging; and if deposit return is used on beverage containers, everyone needs to recognize

the detrimental effect this would have on our blue box systems.

Most people and businesses want to recycle, buy environmentally friendly products and reduce the amount of waste. Continuing promotion and education is important

to help people recycle and to assist municipalities and industry to develop recycling and other waste diversions.

The previous government did a lot of work in promoting stewardship, and the Minister of the Environment during this time, Chris Stockwell, does deserve a lot of

credit for his work. He brought forward the Waste Diversion Act and regulations requiring all companies that introduce packaging and printed paper into the Ontario consumer marketplace to share in

the funding of 50% of Ontario's municipal blue box waste diversion programs. Those companies that are designated as stewards for blue box waste can discharge their legal obligations under the Waste

Diversion Act through membership in Stewardship Ontario or seek approval from the WDO to implement the industry stewardship plan. Stewardship Ontario is playing a leading role in the blue box

program, and I am pleased that this government has decided to continue on with the work begun by the previous government.

It concerns me that some people could use those deposit provisions of the bill to undermine the effectiveness of the current programs. The blue box program

designates and defines as stewards brand owners and first importers in Ontario of products that result in blue box waste. That covers a lot of ground. Many products are successfully being diverted

from our landfills now, and that is a good thing. For instance, most beverage containers are already being diverted, and that rate is increasing.

Not everything about recycling responsibilities that municipalities must undertake works equally well across the province, so I would hope that the current

Minister of the Environment would review these regulations on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are functioning well. For instance, regulation 101/94 does not take into account the unique

circumstances that exist in geographically large municipalities like the city of Kawartha Lakes. They recently wrote to the minister to express their concern with the part of the regulation that

reads, "The leaf and yard waste system of a local municipality that has a population of at least 50,000 must include the collection or acceptance of leaf and yard waste in a manner that is

reasonably convenient to the generators of leaf and yard waste in the municipality." The problem they have with this regulation is that it does not adequately recognize the problems faced by

geographically large ridings with population densities.

I know that my other colleague would like to speak to this bill, so I want to stand in support of this bill. Hopefully, it goes to committee, and we can discuss

it at a further time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I was very pleased to receive the package from the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka regarding this private

member's bill. I can tell you that it's a long time coming, and it's about time that the province of Ontario started doing some more proactive things around our waste production.

The city of Hamilton has gone through a very significant process over the last couple of years to try to reduce the amount of waste being produced in that

community. I had the pleasure, while on city council, of heading up the solid waste management master plan steering committee, at which time we worked very diligently with the community to come up

with a waste reduction plan that would get us to a target of a 65% reduction in our waste by 2008. I know that the city is well on their way to achieving that goal, and it's because of the

provision of opportunities for people to undertake more proactive initiatives around how they deal with their waste. So in the city of Hamilton that included -- in fact, we just did a sod-turning,

I guess maybe a month and a half ago -- our new organics facility.

The city is expanding its waste collection into an organics waste collection as well. Although we have been for some time now collecting leaf and yard waste,

this is an opportunity to expand. I think we have about 5,000 -- maybe a little more now -- pilot households on a kitchen waste or a household waste, wet waste kind of collection. We'll be

expanding that every year in the city of Hamilton until we reach the full opportunity for people to recycle their organic waste in their community. That's like kitchen scraps, yard waste and all of

those kinds of things in one particular collection bin, which will be picked up by the city.

It has been an interesting process, because, at first, people tend to resist that kind of action. But what we have found and hopefully what this bill will do is,

as people understand how important it is to divert waste from landfill, they begin to get onside, and that takes some -- I don't want to use the word "education," but it does take some

information-sharing, some moving people along in terms of their understanding of the problems that the generation of waste brings to communities and ultimately the cost, because it is quite costly

for municipalities to deal with the mounting problems of solid waste.

I know it's a problem throughout. I mean it's a problem here in Toronto. Landfills are filling up extremely quickly. There's simply no room to put the garbage

any more. Anyone who understands the current situation worldwide would say that it's kind of backward to dig big holes in the ground to put your garbage in. That's simply not the solution any

longer. Even if that were something that was a viable thing to do or something that we still thought was the appropriate way to deal with solid waste, it takes about 15 to 20 years to successfully

site a new landfill. That's a heck of a long time. The problem is, we need a way to deal with our waste right now, not 15 to 20 years from now.

That was one of the things that led my community -- and I know many other communities are undergoing the same kinds of activities -- to find other solutions to

their recycling. Interestingly enough, one of the frustrations we had as we were moving down this particular path was a feeling that the municipality was ahead of the province in a lot of ways.

Municipalities were not feeling that the provincial level of government was keeping up with the times, if you will, when it comes to waste management issues. It's extremely positive that this

private member's bill is coming forward. I know it will move us a great deal along the way in our waste management challenges.

It's interesting that the member raised the province of British Columbia as an example of a province that's well ahead of the times. I had the opportunity, in my

role as chair, to visit a couple of communities. I laughingly called them the "stinky tours," because it's kind of stinky going through some of those landfill sites and organic facilities. It's not

often a pleasant thing to do, but when you're looking to find what the newest and most cutting-edge technology is, if you're going to be investing tens of millions of dollars in new waste

management systems, you'd better darned well make sure you're getting the best of the best.

I had the opportunity in that role to attend a couple of different communities. Edmonton was one that had some very interesting processes for dealing with waste.

One we went to, though, that I thought was very much in line with this particular bill was HRM, Halifax regional municipality in Nova Scotia. It was very interesting because they were quite a large

region. They had been through restructuring. When I was there, it was about nine years after restructuring. Hamilton was just going into restructuring, and so we had many conversations about their

experiences. Nonetheless, they were very interesting communities insofar as the broad range of types of areas that were part of the regional municipality: lots of challenges around very rural

areas, some suburban areas and more urban downtown types of areas.

It was very interesting to see how well all of the various community types embraced their waste management plan. They spent a great deal of time in that

municipality, as they were putting this together, on communications, on how you change people's opinions or their perceptions of waste, their stewardship of it or their responsibility for it. They

were one community that I was really pleased to see had a significant process, a significant package of opportunities for diversion, particularly the one the member is talking about this morning,

and that is the expansion of deposit systems. If I recall correctly, they had deposit opportunities for pretty much every kind of vessel. I'm thinking even milk cartons, but I might be wrong about

that. But I do recall going to some of their facilities and seeing just the sheer volume of material that was diverted from landfill and then recycled and reused. It was truly amazing, and that's

got to be about four years ago now. To see that this is coming forward brings two things to mind: First, that it's fabulous that it is coming forward, and I hope it gets to committee and through

third reading and is implemented in this province; but also that we are a little bit behind the times, and given the large province that we are, the large population base that we have, we really

need to start taking this stuff seriously because it's a serious, serious concern.

One of the things we do in Hamilton as well that I would hope every community should be obligated to do is again around the stewardship issue. The member from

Parry Sound-Muskoka was mentioning whether or not everyone in this chamber or people watching today have those old half-cans of paint. In Hamilton, we have a program through Hotz Environmental that

receives half-empty, or half-full -- whichever, depending on your perspective -- cans of paint and actually reprocesses the paint and sells it to countries that are in need of that kind of product

but are not able to afford the fresh, brand-new stuff off the line. It's quite amazing to see that they take this mish-mash of all kinds of cans of paint, reprocess it and repackage it into the

big, five-gallon drums and then have a huge market in south Asia particularly, where they send these big vats of paint and sell them. They are used in home construction and industrial-commercial

construction. That's a really unique way of dealing with what is in effect a hazardous waste that is paint. It has a lot of nasty stuff in it from paint bottles or any kind of varnish or chemical

product, and in fact even from organic waste. I was quite interested, in my growth period, in learning about solid waste in the stinky tours, and through that process, about the amount of even

organic waste when it goes to the landfill and what that does to the leachate, the soup you end up with at the end of the day, after the process of degeneration is undertaken in the landfill site.

You end up with a leachate, a by-product of this liquid that has a lot of nasty stuff in it, and the organic waste going into landfill causes the leachate to be even more toxic. So as you can

imagine, there are massive collection systems required to get rid of this leachate, and that's one of the reasons the landfill is not the solution going forward in terms of our environmental

stewardship issues.

I think there are a lot of opportunities for people to embrace this concept. What I really like about the bill is that it's a shared responsibility. So many

times, people say, "Look at all of the packaging; there's so much packaging." You buy a small thing, a little product like Krazy Glue -- that one drives me crazy -- but it's in a tube, and then

it's in a medicine bottle thing, and then it's got packaging all around it. It's very frustrating to see that all of these products have this packaging on them. Why? Because the producers of these

products -- actually the marketers; not even the producers -- think that the more interesting, the more unique they can make these products visually, the greater the likelihood that we as consumers

are going to purchase them. That becomes a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem and it becomes a behavioural issue for us as consumers.

I think we also have an obligation, as people who are collectively responsible for the waste we produce -- and we pay for it one way or the other -- to start

sending the message to the marketers and producers of the products we consume that we don't appreciate all that extra packaging, that we don't need it. If there is a requirement for the packaging

in order to maintain the integrity of the product, for example, then that's one thing and that's understandable. But so many times you have to go through layers of different pieces to get to the

product that you have purchased. I recently got my son some headphones for his Walkman, and I won't say what company they were made by, but I was shocked at the amount of effort it took just to get

the darned headphones out of the package. When I thought about it, they could just be hooked up on a peg where you buy them. They don't need to be in piles and piles of plastic, cardboard and

everything else you can think of.

The other challenge is -- and I learned this through the process in Hamilton -- that there are parts of the packaging we now consume that you can't actually

recycle. We think we can throw everything in that's paper now. The types of paper you can recycle have been quite well expanded. It used to be that you couldn't recycle envelopes with the plastic

windows on them; you can do that now. It used to be that you couldn't recycle cardboard in the same bins. Well, you can do that now. The idea is to make it easier for people to do that.

However, a lot of times you get packaging -- I think about my toothpaste brand particularly. It's in a cardboard box, which normally you would throw in the

recycle bin, of course. But it's interesting to see that on that box there is that shiny metallic lettering. That's not good. That stuff has to be pulled out when it gets to the line in a cardboard

recycling facility. I don't know if people know that, but that's something that shouldn't really be recycled because the metallic paint or whatever it is that's being used on that product is

problematic in the paper recycling process. So, again, if we can get those marketers and producers of products to start taking those shiny things out -- guess what? It's shiny, it attracts us, it's

marketing, that's what it is there for, but on the other end it reduces that product's feasibility in terms of recycling.

There's another issue I wanted to touch on in terms of recycling and product stewardship, and that is around how we convince those who are not quite along this

road yet. It becomes an economic argument, plain and simple. It becomes an argument that says, "As a society, we can't afford to continue to generate this waste because -- guess what? -- we don't

have ways to get rid of it." Even for the most stalwart person who just doesn't want to recycle, I think there are ways to appeal to their economic sense in regard to this problem and perhaps bring

them along the road.

I commend the member for bringing the bill forward. I look forward to its getting to committee and I was very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to it.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm honoured and privileged to get a chance to speak about Bill 195,

An Act to amend the Environmental

Protection Act with respect to the stewardship of products and of the packages or containers used for products, introduced by Norman Miller, MPP for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I think it's a very

important issue to speak about.

I come from the business community. I had a business for a length of time and I know exactly what the member is trying to do to encourage many people in this

province to divert waste and protect our environment, protect our landfill, because it's become a very big problem concerning all the people in this province. As you know, especially in Toronto, we

don't have places to put our garbage -- we ship it to the United States -- and many different cities across the province are facing the same problem. So I think it's very important to educate the

people in this province and create some kind of awareness about the problem we're facing.

I want to just mention -- not to discredit the member -- our government's initiatives. For the last two years we have done a lot of things to protect the

environment -- more than any other government in the last 15 years. Also, since taking office, we've promoted and approved the blue box program, making industry responsible for covering at least

half the cost of operating the municipal blue box programs. As a government, we are pushing very hard to protect our environment for future generations.

As I mentioned, I used to be in business. I operated a distribution company. We used to service many different companies, especially Beckers Milk. If you

returned a milk container to them, you got a refund of 25 cents. Let me tell you, I think it's very important to have a levy or a deposit, and when you return the product, you get your money back.

But let me tell you, it's a very difficult concept, because it would cost business a lot of money. Also, it's not feasible.

I believe the blue box is a very good initiative and will help all the people -- every individual, every household -- across the province to participate in

this program and make them responsible to help their community, their city, their government and their society protect the environment. So that's why, for instance, we have a blue box program, and

every week, when I walk or drive around the streets, in many different neighbourhoods in London, the people always have blue boxes in front of their houses. They segregate the cardboard and the

paper, and there's also the other blue box for containers, for glass, for plastic. I think it's a very important initiative. All the people in the city of London, all the people in many different

cities across the province, are participating in protecting the environment and helping their societies to divert some kinds of garbage to eliminate the problem that we might face in the

future.

Besides those initiatives, many different companies -- I will mention one of those important companies in London, Ontario, Try Recycling -- help to recycle

many different products: concrete, plastic, roof materials, wood and drywall. They'll recycle it and use it again many different times, in different companies and in different industries.

In principle, I think the member brings forward a very important issue, a very important topic. We should all support it. I hope, like myself, everyone in this

House will stand up and support my colleague for his initiative, for his important bill, which I think will create good awareness for all of the people in this province.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm very pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak to Bill 195,

An Act to amend the

Environmental Protection Act with respect to the stewardship of products and of the packages or containers used for products. This bill, of course, has been brought forward by the member for Parry

Sound-Muskoka. He introduced it in the Legislature actually fairly recently, in the last three weeks or so, on May 4, 2005. It is a private member's bill that I would expect will enjoy the support

of most, if not all, of the members of the House in principle. There have been a number of interesting speeches made this morning so far to discuss this issue, and I would think that, in all

likelihood, the government will want to ensure that they're seen to be supportive in principle of this legislation and will want to ensure that the bill goes to committee for further discussion. I

would think that the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka would welcome that. I didn't hear all of his speech at the outset because I had another meeting in the building, but certainly I've had a chance

to discuss this issue with him at some length this morning. I want to commend him for bringing this issue forward in the Legislature.

This is the kind of bill that should be discussed on Thursday mornings during private members' public business. I have brought forward a number of private

member's bills on my own over the years, and I've always found that this is a very useful vehicle for raising an idea, bringing forward an initiative that otherwise perhaps wouldn't be discussed in

the Legislature in a timely way: You put your name on a bill, set down a marker and say, "This is my position, and this is something that I think needs to be done." I believe that the government

should be prepared to take a good, hard look at these bills that come forward on Thursday mornings.

In fact, I have a bill before the House right now, Bill 77, that is now redundant, because the government in its budget last week adopted my idea. It wasn't in

the budget speech, but it was in the budget papers. Actually, the member for Kitchener Centre made reference to it in the House on Tuesday. Unfortunately, he forgot to give me some acknowledgement

that it was my idea, but that's to be expected, I suppose. The idea was to give a retail sales tax exemption for people who have to buy booster seats for their larger children, given the fact that

the government has brought forward safety legislation which will compel parents to have their kids in booster seats much longer than we've traditionally done, I suppose, in Ontario, until the child

is up to eight years old or 80 pounds. This was something that was in the budget, and I was obviously very pleased to see that. I'm glad that the Minister of Finance listened to the suggestion that

was brought forward as a private member's bill. But I've digressed to some degree talking about my own initiative, and I certainly apologize for that.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has done an extraordinary job since his election to the Legislature in 2001. He came in on a by-election, and he's been a

great addition to the caucus. Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is a great deal of public cynicism these days about politics and politicians in general. It's reaching a crescendo out there this week

with what's happened in the House of Commons. Norm Miller is one of the good guys around here, and we're very, very pleased to have him representing the people of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Bill 195 is intended to introduce the concept of product stewardship, which is a management system based on industry taking on the full responsibility for the

products that they produce or sell, from their inception through to their final disposition state. It is referred to as cradle-to-cradle management.

Bill 195 will help to reduce the generation of the amount of solid waste materials produced in Ontario, which, in turn, will help in reducing the amount of

product containers, packaging materials and other non-biodegradable waste going to the landfill sites. Bill 195 will help the government meet its ambitious waste diversion goal of 60% by the end of

You look at this initiative by the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, and he's trying to help the government. In opposition, he's trying to bring forward a

constructive idea to assist the government. If the government is able to achieve its waste diversion target by 2008, you can expect to hear about it during the 2007 election campaign; they'll be

boasting about it. But what we're trying to do with this bill, and what the member is trying to do, is give you assistance in that regard.

This was -- well, it continues to be -- a huge issue. Waste management will be an issue forever in this province. It is an important responsibility of the

provincial government. I think back to when I was first running for office in 1990. I remember the issue of the environment coming up repeatedly, and one of the things that I had said during an

all-candidates meeting was that we need to encourage industry to take greater responsibility for the packaging they produce. Consumers need to be part of that. In terms of the purchases they make,

consumers need to try to influence industry to take more responsibility.

Fifteen years later, here we are, still talking about it, and I would suggest that we need to give serious consideration to adopting the member's bill,

building on the work of the previous government through the establishment of Waste Diversion Ontario, which I had an opportunity to participate in as PA to the Minister of the Environment.

Once again, I want to commend the member for his initiative, thank him very much, and I would encourage all members of the House to support it. I would hope

that the bill will be sent to committee for further discussion.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): From a former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment to the current parliamentary

assistant to the Minister of the Environment. I rise today to support our colleague Mr. Miller, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, and his private member's bill, Bill 195.

I just want to make sure that we're clear on the record that we believe that the principle of this bill is very good. Product packaging, as the member from

Hamilton East and other members said, is an impediment to our goal of 60% waste diversion. I think that the debate we're having today is yet another opportunity for all of us to bring focus to this

very issue.

Municipalities have asked the province for a complete set of tools to divert more waste from landfills, because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, waste diversion is a

municipal issue that has a provincial context. The development of our waste diversion strategy does not preclude the possibility of proposing new rules for product packaging, as envisioned by the

member from Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Last summer, our ministry posted a discussion paper on the environmental registry, which is on our Web site, so that all matters environmental are actually

posted in this province. I think it's a very wise idea, because it allows the government to share information with the public before things become law, whether in this place or through regulation.

That was posted to attract ideas to help achieve our government's stated commitment to divert at least 60% percent of waste from landfills by the end of 2008. I know that my colleague from Niagara

was talking about the need to become less and less reliant on landfills and the problems we have with them.

The discussion paper included a

section that was entitled -- I just want to share this with you -- Reducing Packaging and Increasing the Recycled Content in

Products and Packaging. So our government is aware of that.

Ideas were also gathered in six public forums held in communities across Ontario last summer. Ideas were contributed by scores of citizen, municipalities,

industries, environmental groups and academics. I would, on behalf of the government, and I think all of us here in the Legislature, want to thank all of those good people who actually participated

in that very public process. Those ideas are now informing the development of our government's comprehensive strategy to help municipalities divert more waste from landfills.

It's worth noting that the province already has powers through the Environmental Protection Act and the Waste Diversion Act to impose product packaging rules

like those proposed by my friend Mr. Miller. Debate about this bill will help to inform the development of our government's comprehensive waste diversion strategy. Even though this bill, in one

sense, could be considered redundant, my government colleagues and I appreciate the effort put into this bill by the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka and his helping us bring further attention of

the public at large to this important issue.

I would say in all honesty that our government has done more for waste diversion planning in our first 19 months as a government than previous governments had

done in the last 15 years. Upon taking office, we promptly approved the blue box program plan, making industry responsible for covering at least half the cost to operate municipal blue box

programs. This gave municipalities the funds they needed to expand their waste diversion efforts.

It's not enough just to talk about waste diversion. We can all get up here and talk about how blue boxes are great -- my home community of Stratford is one of

the leaders of the blue box program across this province -- but there are costs associated. We needed to come up with a plan to make sure that there was an equitable distribution of costs and that

we'd be in a position to expand the blue box plan so that we could get to the very important goal of 60% waste diversion. That means that more than $64 million will flow to our municipalities this

year. The previous government, for whatever reason, had refused to approve the blue box program plan, leaving many municipalities unable to expand their waste diversion efforts. So on one hand,

they were being told, "You've got to do something about landfills," but on the other hand, they were not being given the financial resources to make that happen.

As a complement, because this is a complicated issue -- landfills, waste diversion, recycling -- our government has also appointed an expert panel that will

recommend ways to improve the environmental assessment process. I might add, and I agree with the member from London-Fanshawe, that we share a wonderful recycling facility called Try Recycling. He

was speaking about that in his comments. My minister, Leona Dombrowsky, and I have visited it, and he's absolutely right. It's amazing what they're doing in that facility about recycling,

particularly of industrial-commercial and institutional waste. Under the previous government, the EA process frustrated the abilities of municipalities to site waste diversion facilities, which is

why we have the expert panel to move that along. Through several complementary initiatives, our government is demonstrating the strength of its commitment to help municipalities find better waste

diversion solutions.

I did want to speak briefly about the blue box program. I want to give a great deal of credit. My ability to understand this issue goes to a chap named Mike

Jorna, who was the deputy mayor of Stratford for many years. It was Michael, who was the environmental studies teacher at Central High School in Stratford and serving his community as a Stratford

city councillor, who moved the blue box program forward -- I might add, at some political price to him, because the other thing that he was great for was the institution of bag tags in Stratford.

People were very unhappy with that about garbage, but our reliance on the landfill went down substantially when people saw that they could either pay to have their garbage disposed of by the

community or recycle for free. When that was instituted, our waste went down and our recycling skyrocketed.

You should know that 98% of households are served by the blue box program. There's an interesting thing I've learned, as the PA at MOE, about aluminum cans:

The amount of energy required to make an aluminum can is substantial, but it is infinitely recyclable. That's why we have to urge people, particularly the children in the gallery today, to recycle.

I say to the young members in the gallery, we don't inherit our natural environment from our grandparents; we're just borrowing it from our grandchildren. I support the bill today in that tone.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Miller, have you two minutes to respond.

Mr. Miller: I would like at this point to thank Michael Wood, the legislative counsel who drafted the bill and spent a lot of time on seven

drafts coming forward with the bill. So thank you, Michael, and also the members who commented today: the member from Niagara Falls, who stated that this bill is a "step forward"; the member from

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, who stated that we create too much waste and we have to change the way we design products; the member from Hamilton East, who stated that landfills are not the solution

and that we have too much packaging; the member from London-Fanshawe, who supports the bill but also pointed out that the blue box system does work here in Ontario as well; the member from

Waterloo-Wellington, who stated that we need to encourage industry to take more responsibility; and the member from Perth-Middlesex, the PA to the Minister of the Environment, who supports the bill

in principle.

This is an issue that is very current. I look at yesterday's clippings and I see in the North Bay Nugget, "Climate, Garbage Threaten Province." The

Environmental Commissioner "said municipalities must take a more active interest in recycling and other ways to reduce energy demands.... He said the public and the government have to show more"

than "concern over what is happening to the environment."

You flip it over, and there's a story, "Democrats Dump on Trash Imports," in the Windsor Star. They've hauled out the Trash-O-Meter and stated that "2,180,411

tons of garbage" have been trucked into Michigan, and they're not happy about it.

If you look at yesterday, there was an Ipsos-Reid poll done on waste management problems in Ontario that shows that three quarters of Ontarians believe the

province is facing a garbage crisis. Two thirds of Ontarians indicate that the province needs to seek new and expanded facilities and increase recycling and diversion efforts.

The Ontario Waste Management Association study indicates that the business sector generates nearly two thirds of the waste produced in Ontario. Product

stewardship can help the province meet its goal of diverting 60% of waste from landfills.

I hope all members will support this bill.

PAYDAY LOANS ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES PRÊTS

SUR SALAIRE

Mr. Kormos moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 193,

An Act respecting payday loans / Projet de loi 193, Loi traitant des prêts sur salaire.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Kormos, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thank you, Speaker.

Last March in Ottawa, a judge ruled that two companies were trying to exploit the vulnerable by charging criminal rates of interest. Deputy Judge George House

described one company, Affordable Payday Loans, as having "engaged in an organized, consistent and concerted pattern of conduct designed to exploit the vulnerable." He described the interest rate

of another firm, Stop `N' Cash 1450, as "unconscionably usurious." The judge said that the victims of these companies did not have to pay the exorbitant fees that were charged to them, but these 34

plaintiffs were merely a handful of the thousands of Ontarians who have been victimized by payday lenders.

I submit to this chamber that it's time for this Parliament to pay attention to the industry's well-documented abuses and to take action to protect ordinary

Ontario families. It's not enough to wait for the courts or other levels of government to take the lead. Five provinces presently have some form of regulation, licensing or registration required

for payday lenders: New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Last month, Manitoba announced their plan to crack down on the payday lending industry. Manitoba's legislation

is going to license the industry, force them to include all service fees when advertising interest rates, ban rollover loans and ban companies from confiscating the paycheques of people who stop

making payments. Payday lenders are also regulated in South Africa, Australia, the United Kingdom and most of the United States. Ontario cannot sit and wait for somebody else to address this

problem.

Over four months ago, I was proud to be amongst those supporting the resolution brought forward by Ms. Deb Matthews, the member for London North Centre, when

she presented her resolution calling for all of us to move to ensure that consumers are protected from excessive charges and hidden costs in the payday loan industry. This bill today flows as much

from her work in that regard as it does from the others and groups that I'll refer to in the course of this 10 minutes.

So we've all committed ourselves to take action to restrain an industry that habitually breaks the law and engages in nothing more than loansharking, to an

extent that Tony Soprano would be embarrassed. Well, think about it. We'll get to some of the numbers; they're pretty dramatic figures. The mob doesn't extort money as thoroughly and in as huge

numbers as some of these bad payday loan operators do. With this in mind, the New Democrats have sat down with consumer groups and payday lending victims, and of course with the assistance of

legislative counsel, to develop the bill that's presented here today for second reading. Consumer and public interest groups have joined payday lending victims in calling for this sort of

legislation for some time now.

Sue Lott of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre is the author of reports such as Fringe Lending and "Alternative" Banking: The Consumer Experience. She says,

"Bill 193 would be an important step by this province to regulate the payday lending sector. We urge MPPs to move this bill forward and bring it into law." John Young is the author of ACORN

Canada's special report, Protecting Canadians' Interest: Reining In the Payday Lending Industry, and he says, "The Ontario government must act in order to protect Canadians from what is now an

unaccountable and unethical industry. If passed, Bill 193 will do exactly that."

The bill includes setting payday lending interest rate caps, and that's incredibly important. Currently, payday lenders regularly charge annual interest as

high as 1,000% -- that's one and three zeroes.

Many here will know of the excellent series of articles in the Toronto Star by Nicole MacIntyre and Jim Rankin. They exposed in great detail how these payday

lenders do precisely this. The Star

article details how a loan of $100 for three days at a Toronto-based Payroll Loans cost a borrower $25.48. That's over 25% interest over the course of but three

days. Using the legal accounting standards, that works out to an annual interest rate of over 3,000%. A loan of $120 from Stop `N' Cash cost the borrower $41, or an annual interest rate of 1,782%.

Jane Spooner, an ACORN member who was charged an annual interest rate of 410% on a loan of $100, borrowed that money from a Money Mart in Weston, Ontario. A 410% interest rate on a loan of

$100.

The Criminal Code of Canada makes it quite clear that annual interest rates of over 60% are illegal, but as Manitoba Finance Minister Gregory Selinger recently

noted, the federal rate is not enforced at all. We have serious concerns about this. It is a very labour-intensive thing for the police to be using the Criminal Code to investigate these payday

lenders and charging them under the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code. We wish it were done, but we understand the scarce resources with respect to policing and we say that this bill is the

approach that's going to enable this province to protect these borrowers from these predators, the payday lenders, in an effective way, without the utilization of scarce police resources.

By bringing in the strict regulatory regime that's in Bill 193, we will be enforcing the Criminal Code and its prohibition on excessive interest rates and

we'll be protecting the public from this loansharking. Bill 193 also includes a ban on payday lending's most insidious loans; these are the rollover, extension and back-to-back loans. These are the

practices that create inescapable debt cycles. Some of you may remember when Rob Ferguson was here, a legally blind Brampton man who receives ODSP. His cycle of payday loans began over a year ago

when he borrowed $200 to pay back an outstanding hydro bill. He was supposed to have paid back $325 on that short-term $200 loan, but couldn't meet the payments so he rolled over the loan into a

subsequent one, extending the repayment period at an exorbitant new cost. He then re-borrowed money again and again, rolling it over and over until that $200 turned into $1,600 in debt.

Sherry, another member of ACORN, got trapped in a similar debt trap. A little over a year ago, she took out a payday loan from a Money Mart in Brampton. Her

loan came due on a Thursday but her payday, when she got paid, was on a Friday. Unable to cover the cost of late fees because she was a day late, she took out another loan. There you are again,

another loan and another loan and another loan. She, like Rob Ferguson, was trapped in the payday lender's debt cycle. Oh, they love it. The payday lenders love it when you don't pay your loan on

time.

Bill 193 will impose a cooling-off period between loans to prevent lenders from taking advantage of clients in this way. These measures will be enforced

through the establishment of a tough payday lending registrar who will oversee the industry, enforce rate caps and levy fines. All payday lenders will have to be registered. The registrar will be

responsible for enforcing the act, reporting on the industry to the government and educating the public. The registrar will ensure that payday lenders play by the rules laid out in the act, and

violations of this act can yield fines of up to $250,000 or two years in jail.

The measures in Bill 193, I submit to you, will stop the predatory practices that have victimized so many Ontarians. These are lower-income Ontarians. These

are incredibly vulnerable Ontarians. These are Ontarians who are supporting themselves on social assistance, or are trying to support themselves, scraping by on ODSP payments.

I want to thank ACORN and its members. Some of them are here today in a gesture of support for the bill. They've been critical in helping us put this bill

together and their expertise is extremely valuable. I want to thank David Halporn, our legislative counsel, who of course drafted it. None of us sits down at the computer and writes these bills

ourselves. We'd be foolish if we tried. Legislative counsel David Halporn was extremely useful to us in this exercise and we appreciate it. Elliot Anderson from NDP research, who quite frankly did

most of the heavy lifting around this bill -- again, I appreciate his work.

The act is a small and simple step that this Parliament could take immediately to show that we're serious about cracking down on today's loan sharks. We've got

to keep working with other levels of government, the federal government and provincial governments across Canada, as well as alternative financial institutions and credit unions, to see that the

banking and financing needs of working communities are met. In the interim, I look forward and wish and hope that this Parliament will send this bill to the appropriate committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): This is an interesting bill that the member for Niagara Centre has brought forward. It deals a lot with integrity

and honesty of financial dealings, and I'm very supportive of what this bill intends to do.

But I find it somewhat amusing when I look at this one-pager that came around explaining how the NDP bill will put a ban on legalized loansharking. I see up in

the corner a picture of a chap and the name underneath it purports this person to be Peter Kormos. Now this person has, first of all, a full head of hair. Secondly, his full head of hair is very

dark in colour and his face is definitely oval shaped, not round. It doesn't have nearly the cheeks or jowls --

Mr. Kormos: This is ad hominem stuff. This is cruel.

Mr. Chudleigh: Peter, if you're talking about integrity and honesty in loansharking, I would suggest that you could look a little closer to

home at some point early on and change this picture. This is a picture of a guy -- you know, he's a pretty good-looking guy. He could be in Hollywood. A person might vote for this guy.

Mr. Kormos: Why do you think I'm using the picture?

Mr. Chudleigh: I suspect. However, I do point that out.

This bill is a good one. One of the problems I have with this bill, and it's not a serious one -- it's an amendment -- is you can't paint everyone in this

province with one brush. It's a very diverse province and every business within it has very diverse people. I'm sure all the examples that the member from Niagara Centre used were very accurate,

but I suspect there are also agents, same-day loan people, payday loan areas, who are very reputable and conduct their business at a very high level. In my experience, I have always found painting

the entire province with one brush to be difficult and quite often inaccurate.

Payday loans are also something that very few of us have ever had any experience in, and very few of our friends would have ever had any experience in this.

But, as the member points out, this is a very real problem for some sectors of our society. We should pay attention, as members in this House, to the needs of all of the people in Ontario and, in

particular, those people who perhaps are less able to help themselves when they fall outside the constraints that we so often set.

As I pointed out, there are probably some same-day loan outfits that operate very regularly, but there are unfortunately always, in these industries that are

unregulated, a few bad apples that spoil the barrel. Excuse me if I use that term. Of course, the bad apples spoil the barrel. Many years ago, we always packed our apples in barrels. You would get

a couple of hundred apples in a barrel, and if you had two bad ones in there, by the time they got shipped to wherever they were going, quite often you had a barrel full of mush. So it's important

that we clean the business up to make sure that those who are reputable in the business can survive. Yes, regulation in this area is sadly lacking. I would suggest that the Financial Services

Commission of Ontario would be the organization under which umbrella this legislation should come.

These regulations should also allow -- and perhaps this can be done through an amendment, I say to the member for Niagara Centre -- that when someone has a

cheque that is drawn on a bank, and that person has reasonable identification, that bank should be committed to cashing that cheque, even though that person who is submitting the cheque does not

have an account with that bank or, perhaps, with any other bank.

It's always been a problem with me that if you're dealing with ABC bank, and ABC's customer writes a cheque to a person who has done some service for them, and

that person takes that cheque over to ABC branch and wants to cash it, with proper identification, that bank will not cash that cheque unless that person has an account somewhere. Many of these

people will not have bank accounts. That cheque that has been issued on that bank is like a piece of money, and in order to get hold of that money, the duty of that bank is to convert that piece of

paper into cash. When that doesn't happen, then that begins to drive that person into the arms of the payday loan company, and therein lies part of the problem: How do I cash this cheque when I'm

outside the normal financial channels? In my mind, that is wrong and it is something that should be corrected.

trust companies -- whereby those cheques could be cashed.

The other problem with the payday loan area being unregulated has been pointed out most clearly by Mr. Kormos from Niagara Centre, and that, of course, makes

the bill a necessary one and one that would improve the lot of many Ontario residents, particularly those who are trying to get themselves established, to get themselves on their feet financially,

as it were. Because they have had a problem -- perhaps they don't have a bank account; perhaps they are trying to get themselves out of a loan spiral -- those are the people who are most vulnerable

in our society, and those are the people whom we in this House should be very concerned about.

I will be supporting this legislation. I would like to see a few amendments to it. I think it could become a stronger piece of legislation. I would like to see

it be as fair a piece of legislation as it could possibly be to all involved, including reputable loan dealers.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): We come together in this place each day and begin the session by praying that we may

govern wisely and well and seeking a country where freedom prevails and justice rules. I think on a good day that is where we're all coming from. In that sense, I want to say that there's a

difference between praying for people and preying on people.

I want to commend the work of my honourable colleague Deb Matthews, and also the member from Niagara Centre, who brought forward this bill, although I do need

to note that it's ironic -- I think if you look up the word "ironic" in the dictionary, it would read "Peter Kormos" as the definition.

The simple truth of the matter is that the McGuinty government, since coming to office, has been working hard to address the issue of payday loans through Bill

70, and we've done what we can to protect consumers within our provincial jurisdiction. We've also been lobbying the federal government to make the required changes to the Criminal Code, because

the jurisdiction for interest rate issues is in fact at the federal level. We've been pushing the feds to do that so we can consider regulating the industry in an effective and meaningful way. The

provinces that were mentioned that have moved to licensing in the payday loan sector have each acknowledged that they are having great difficulty with respect to

section 347 of the Criminal Code.

In fact, the licensing provisions are, for all intents and purposes, ineffective in that regard.

Instead of working together on many fronts, we've seen some filibustering around Bill 70, which is interesting because it in fact moves to ensure that

consumers are protected and that the costs of loans are spelled out. But over and above that, let's be honest, it is in fact the feds who have jurisdiction under the Criminal Code. I've already

mentioned that those provinces that license acknowledge the significant problems.

Importantly, not that long ago, our Minister of Consumer and Business Services, the Honourable James Watson, wrote to federal Justice Minister Cotler on the

issue, and as a result of that, there was a special federal-provincial-territorial group that came together called the consumer measures committee. That task group has been working diligently,

through a subgroup called the alternative consumer credit market group, to frame a joint response to high interest rates and the alleged unfair trading practices of certain companies. It should be

pointed out that some lenders are quite reputable and are as concerned about rollover loans and what have you as the member from Niagara Centre and some others who are here. So that group has been

working to develop a consumer protection framework that will be the locus and subject of their upcoming June meeting -- it's June 2005 -- to look at what legislative framework might be put in place

to provide the very kind of protection that the member from Niagara Centre and my colleague Deb Matthews would like to see in place.

I want to provide assurance to this House that when the federal government moves, and we have every reason to believe, based on the working group that has been

set up, that they will in fact be moving to make changes to the Criminal Code and bring in better enforcement provisions, we will move to regulate the industry through legislation. We share the

concern about rate caps, the need for regulations and rollover difficulties. Personally, I would simply ban back-to-back loans. I think that ought to be in place. We intend to move with our

federal, territorial and other provincial partners on this front.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 193. I want to start off by talking about who the victims of

this nasty regime are right now. The victims of this nasty regime are, generally speaking, low-income people who are perhaps working at minimum wage jobs, and in some cases working at two or three

part-time minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet, because our economy unfortunately doesn't provide a good quality of life for all our residents and all the people who need to make a living to

support their families. In some cases, it's people who are relying on social assistance, the Ontario disability support plan and other kinds of income supports: pensioners, senior citizens, people

who are not in a position to have decent wages and decent amounts of regular income they can rely on.

Why do people in this income bracket or in these positions tend to have to turn to a payday loan operator? Mostly because they live very precariously, from

payday to payday, from pay to pay, and something comes up, something unexpected, something for which they weren't able to acorn away any money in case of an emergency. They're living from pay to

pay so they don't have the little nest egg set aside in case some major trouble arises or some unexpected expense creeps up. When I say unexpected expense, I'm not talking about something that any

one of us would think is a major, huge expense: an unexpected car repair of maybe $500, $600, $700. Where's that money going to come from if you don't have a bank account with savings in it? A

leaky roof, a broken washing machine -- there are all kinds of things that come up that people are not expecting, that people are not ready for, that are not factored into the weekly expenses that

go out the door just for regular daily life.

When those kinds of things creep up, when those kinds of issues arise, unfortunately -- I think it was mentioned already -- many of these residents in our

communities from all across Ontario don't have accounts at the regular banks, and if they do, the regular banks are not prepared to provide small loans to people. Oftentimes, the people in question

language, who are recent immigrants to our communities, who don't have a good grasp of the kinds of opportunities that exist for them to perhaps go through the more mainstream financial services

that can be available, but are often not available, unfortunately. So we have a banking industry that discriminates against some of these people, and they are then forced to seek out the services

of these loan-shark-type payday lending facilities.

It's really kind of interesting to see what has not happened in Ontario to address this problem. We have a government that at this point in time is not acting

on this problem, although we know it's been raised several times in the Legislature. It's well overdue that somebody gets serious and puts a stop to this nasty business. Apparently the government

is relying on some future dialogue, some discussion paper and all that. Meanwhile, people are getting ripped off day after day in community after community across the province.

It's just not good enough to say that some time soon we'll be having a discussion about the problem. We know what the problem is. We know this industry needs

to be regulated. We know there need to be stronger consumer protections in place to address the problem of payday loans. It's just a matter of getting off the collective tush of the government and

getting it done. Bill 193 does that. I'm really hopeful that we'll get the support we need for this bill, move it into committee and come out at the end of the process with a good, solid piece of

legislation that tries to go after these sharks who are ripping off consumers every day.

I was looking through the materials, and they have a quote here from Jim Watson, the minister, who says, "I think it's a good first step." The idea is that

it's a good first step that the businesses themselves get together to try to do some self-regulation. That's like the fox in the henhouse, quite frankly. I don't think that self-regulation,

although it sounds like a good thing, will bring the results we need to see. Unfortunately, it's taken a significant amount of nastiness published in various newspapers and news outlets about these

disgusting practices. Self-regulation is just not going to cut the mustard when it comes to dealing with this industry.

I want to mention something that was in the Ottawa Citizen on March 31, referring to Stop `N' Cash 1450. This is in regard to the Ottawa judge who recently

made a decision on this particular industry: "The judge wrote, `The plaintiff has displayed an organized deceptive pattern designed to exploit the vulnerable.' The actions of the other company,

Affordable Payday Loans, were akin to loansharking, the judge said." This is what we all think. Anybody who has ever had the experience of talking to someone who's been ripped off, anybody who

reads any of the volumes of material that are available regarding this industry, will know that this is quite clearly a sentiment we should all be sharing. Not only is it a sentiment we should be

sharing, but it should be a motivator for us to get this bill passed and make sure we put a stop to the organized, deceptive pattern of exploiting the vulnerable that these payday loan operations

unfortunately make so much money out of.

From the same article: "Consumer protection is part of the job of Consumer and Business Services Minister Jim Watson. But where's Watson? The omnipresent

minister has kept a low profile on the payday loan issue. New consumer protection legislation this summer will mean the payday loan companies have to more clearly spell out how badly they are

gouging customers. Ministers from other provinces will meet in June to discuss what else to do."

It's really clear what else needs to be done. In the interim, while we push this bill through the process and get some real legislation, the Attorney General

needs to lay charges whenever these things are brought forward, whenever they are brought to the light of day. The laws do exist, and unfortunately they're not being enforced. Yes, it will likely

cost a significant amount of money to start prosecuting some of these, but the message has to get out there one way or another. Until we can get a better regulated system in place, for the time

being we have to find a way to dissuade these loan sharks from preying on the vulnerable in our communities.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about how exactly this industry breaks the law. I think it was adequately illustrated by the member from Niagara Centre

in his description of the bill during his initial 10 minutes. What happens is that these payday lenders charge annual interest rates of sometimes over 1,000%. The Criminal Code of Canada says that

annual interest rates should not exceed 60%. That's where the breaking of the law is occurring.

There's an example we have here that I wanted to go through with you because it really illustrates the problem. Canada Cash Advance allows a short-term loan of

up to $500 and demands a return of $612.50. They're allowing rollovers of the original amount, provided that the interest is repaid, so you can just keep paying the interest but your loan continues

to be outstanding. Lenders claim that it's actually a new loan, but it's really borrowing the same amount again and again and again. That means that after about a year, you could be paying $1,350

on a $500 loan and never pay down any of your principal. That's an interest rate of 268% annually. This is the kind of thing that, unfortunately, is happening time and time again, and we need to

get active on putting a stop to it.

So how do you do that? How do you put a stop to it? Well, Bill 193 does that by putting together a framework of both consumer protection and a licensing and

regulation regime.

It will give the government the power to put a hard cap on the interest rates charged by the payday lenders.

Under the Payday Loans Act, no payday loan would exceed 25% of the borrower's net income from their next paycheque, so you can't borrow more money than you're

actually going to receive in your pay in the short term. This is a practice that has to stop, that people are allowed to borrow money at these exorbitant interest rates while the company knows full

well that that person is not going to have the opportunity to pay back that loan because they don't even have enough money coming in their next pay to cover it off. This bill would prevent that

from happening and would ensure that the maximum amount of the loan couldn't be any more than 25% of the person's net income for their next paycheque.

A full ban of the rollover loans and the imposition of a cooling-off period at the end of one loan before the next loan can be taken out: These are real

consumer protections and these are things the minister should have been looking at, but instead we now have an opportunity to bring them forward with Bill 193.

It also would ensure that the consumer is very clear on exactly how much they are paying on the payday loan they're taking out versus what it would be on a

standard loan in the mainstream financial sector.

Then there's the licensing and regulation of operators that needs to occur so that not just any person, any group of people, anybody who feels like maybe

making a cool quick buck can set these things up. It's unbelievable that there's no licensing required for these facilities. Anybody who at all thinks, "This might be a lucrative thing to get into"

-- and guess what? It's very lucrative -- can just set these things up. This bill says that's not right, that if in fact you're going to set up a payday loan facility, you need to be licensed and

there are going to be requirements of your licence. Not only the basic requirements around licensing fees to pay for administration of the regime, but minimum operating capital, a presence in the

jurisdiction -- you can't just be a fly-by-night type of person coming in and out -- and details of the corporate structure and governance of your business are going to be required. These are

things that will then be on record, so that should fines -- well, that's another part of this, in fact.

There's the establishment of a regulator that can then ensure that regulations around payday loan facilities are being enforced. Then, of course, there are the

abilities that regulator would have to make sure that the regime is being appropriately operated: powers to renew, suspend, cancel and grant licences, as well as the ability to prosecute those who

are not following the rules that are set out and not complying with registration under the act.

The other piece would be spending some real time as a regulator to provide education to consumers so that they understand what it is they're getting into and

to ensure that the complaints that will still likely come forward have a place to go. The regulator can follow up on those complaints as a way of ensuring that there is integrity in the system.

A system that right now has no integrity whatsoever, that a judge called -- what was that quote again? -- "legalized loansharking" is something that is banned

forever in this province through Bill 193. If we're going to have to have these payday loan facilities, then they would be regulated and consumers would be protected from the kind of financial

usury that is currently rife within this industry.

Thank you very much. I'm very proud to support this bill.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I intend to support Bill 193, the Payday Loans Act, introduced by my colleague from Niagara Centre. It builds on

the work that has also been done by my colleague from London North Centre.

To try to bring this home, during the time that I was in municipal politics in the city of Peterborough, I chaired the social services committee on two

occasions. Through that experience, you would often encounter individuals who would make appointments with you to come and talk about why, because of the particular set of circumstances they were

in, they would have to avail themselves of one of these payday loan organizations to seek funding on a short-term basis over the next two months. It was always very distressing for me personally to

deal with these individuals. You looked at their situation and tried to perhaps steer them to other sources to assist them to get through the short-term difficulty they were having, but inevitably

they would end up in the door of one of these payday loan organizations to get a short-term loan, often to address some immediate family needs.

That's one of the reasons I was pleased that the Minister of Community and Social Services, the other day in this House, talked about providing some transition

for individuals who are moving from Ontario Works into the full-time job area, because often those were the individuals who would come to see you. They were anticipating moving into a full-time

job, but often they were on OW/ODSP, and being a recipient of OW/ODSP, they would have dental and drug cards for their family. What would happen is that they would move into full-time employment,

and in six months, because they didn't have those benefits for their family -- they may have a sick child or another loved one they were looking after -- they would have to go to a payday loan

organization to acquire extra dollars to provide for their family.

I see this bill in the context of a few years ago when right across Canada we had to clean up some of the regulations regarding interest charged on credit

cards. There was a great swell of consumer concern, not only in this province but right across Canada, to make sure that credit card companies clearly, in a very transparent way, would provide a

schedule of charges that individuals would face if they didn't pay off their credit card balance within a prescribed period. I think that's important.

The member from Halton raised the important issue that there are some bad apples, but there are others who conduct themselves in a reasonable business fashion.

But if you bring in this bill and have a

schedule of charges to make it much more transparent, then everybody who walks through that front door sees very visibly what charges they may anticipate if

they avail themselves of that particular service.

Indeed, I've heard and had a chance to read newspaper accounts of the judge's comments, particularly in Ottawa, when he talked about these activities bordering

on loansharking and usury types of situations. I think all parliamentarians have a responsibility to clean this up.

Also, you have a situation where a crisis may occur. For example, last July we had the flood in Peterborough and, before insurance would kick in for those who

had insurance or before provincial support kicked in for those who didn't have insurance, people who were at the lower-income strata of our society had to take advantage of these payday loans

because they had to replace furniture or appliances. So people in crisis at least need to have some knowledge that if these activities are going to take place in one's community, there are a series

of regulations.

I see this legislation as a complement to any changes that may be made at the federal level.

My friend from Oak Ridges is here. I remember he was at the Ronnie Hawkins concert in Peterborough, which raised a lot of money to support primarily those

individuals who were caught without appropriate insurance or no insurance after that flood. I know we had a great time that evening. I appreciate that the member came to Peterborough to generously

support that event.

I think it's important that we move this bill forward. It does indeed come to the assistance of people who are the most vulnerable in our society, and I happen

to think it's important that we provide that protection. On that basis, I will give my wholehearted support to this piece of legislation.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I, too, want to join with other members in the House in expressing my support for this legislation. I commend

the member for Niagara Centre for bringing it forward. It really does go to the heart of what we as legislators are all about, and that is to ensure that there are protections in place for

consumers and that the laws are here to protect those who need protecting.

I'm always concerned when we bring forward another piece of legislation that calls for more regulation. I think all of us will agree that we are so

overburdened, as a society, with rules and regulations. Every time we turn around, it seems that there's more red tape being added, and we continue, in this place, to add more loads of regulation.

However, as someone once said, there is such a thing as good regulation, and I believe this falls into that category.

It is unfortunate that people have to resort to using this kind of facility. Really, the fact that we're even debating this is an indication that there is a

deeper concern. The problem isn't so much with loans; it's the fact that people find themselves in a circumstance where they have to resort to getting a loan to take them over the next month or

two. That's a fundamental problem in our society today. It seems that it doesn't matter if someone is on welfare or is working for minimum wage or is earning a $40,000 income or an $80,000 income;

in today's society, people are always spending more than they should be.

I have felt for a very long time that we have a responsibility, as a society, to help people become more responsible in the use of their financial resources. I

am an advocate of starting right in our school system. Within our curriculum, at the very early ages in our curriculum, there should be something there to teach young people about the value of

money, the source of money and how it should be budgeted, so that young people begin to appreciate the fact of stewardship, meaning how you use what you have responsibly.

I have watched people, as you may well have, go into these places. It's saddening when you realize that it is in fact the most vulnerable in our society who

are taking the few dollars they have, because they need it today, but what's being skimmed off is 25%, 30% and 40% of that, which they need to buy the next loaf of bread or to put groceries on the

table for their families. You know that a business is skimming that, but there aren't the protections in place to protect people like that from their own weakness. So there is a responsibility that

we have, but I suggest that there are things that we should be doing beyond this legislation and beyond this kind of regulation to get at the heart of the problem.

I want to implore the Minister of Consumer and Business Services because, while I thank the member from Niagara for bringing this forward and while I will be

supporting this -- and I'm sure this bill will pass today, and it will hopefully go to committee and there may well be some changes to the regulation and then it may well be referred back to this

House for third reading. My concern is that that will be the end of it, because there have been many other good, private member's initiatives very similar to this that have enjoyed the support of

this House, but when it gets to the point of the government actually implementing the legislation, because it's not a priority for the minister, it's not a priority for the ministry, the

bureaucracy will say, "The last thing we need on our plate now is one more piece of legislation to administer," and all of the good intentions of this House are frustrated.

One example of that is the Collision Repair Standards Act, Bill 186, which was introduced in this House. You recall it well; I know you spoke to it, Speaker.

It was passed unanimously by this House and received third reading. It is still sitting on the minister's desk awaiting implementation. As recently as a couple of weeks ago I had a discussion with

the minister encouraging him to implement that because it, like this, protects consumers against those in the collision repair industry who are ripping people off across this province. But it's not

a priority for the ministry -- and that's from the minister's own statement to me. How disappointed I am in that, because it's a solid piece of legislation. The stakeholders within the industry

support it; they want it. As with this legislation before us, I encourage the minister to implement it because it's in the best interest of the people we represent. These are the pocketbook issues

that affect people across this province and, for that reason, I again commend the member from Niagara Centre for bringing it forward. I will be supporting it, but I look forward to the minister

implementing it.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I do appreciate taking the last few minutes to address Bill 193, the private member's bill from the member for Niagara

Centre, who brings to us a passion about this particular industry. It's a little late, because I do remember having this conversation with him about that quite some time ago.

The member from Oak Ridges wants to talk to us a little bit about private members' bills. I want to tell him that I have a positive example of how private

members' bills get going, and that's Bill 3, the anaphylactic law. I would suggest to you very strongly that I look forward to improving the circumstances of private members' bills and engaging

that, and that's going to be taking place in the democratic renewal. I know that in this House, each one of us would like to see private members' business become a little bit more focused and allow

us to speak to the voice of the particular bills that are coming up.

I want to support another statement made by the members opposite. There was a comment about, "Let's not paint everybody with the same brush." I've met with the

organization of payday loan people and they are onside with looking at regulations. Unfortunately, though, there are people outside of that membership who I believe the member is talking about more

succinctly, in that there are some really nasty things going on out there. But that organization is speaking very clearly that they see this as an important issue. They have taken steps and

actually started a code of ethics and a code of behaviour. They are looking at everyone joining in with that organization and presenting it to government. The government's bill itself is starting

to speak about that industry. We do have some serious issues with how people are used to get that money and to make money off it.

The member from Oak Ridges also mentioned education in schools. I wholly agree with him, but I want to remind him that even as far back as 1977, when I started

my teaching career, we were doing that. I was using my grade 7 class to experiment with how banking operated. Each member of the class eventually had the responsibility of holding the bank book,

making deposits and -- talking to the other private member's bill of today -- we actually ran out and collected pop bottles, raised money for charity, deposited the money in the bank, and each one

became a treasurer or a secretary.

I would suggest to you that it's a good idea that we use that as a stepping stone to move on to the high school level, where we start talking about serious

stuff like investing and budgeting and all the things that are necessary for us to achieve that knowledge base that helps us with this particular issue. I fully concur with his observation: The

more we can educate our young people in the budgeting process, no matter how much money one makes, the easier it will be for us to avoid the circumstances we're talking about today.

I would suggest that we are painting too many people with one brush, but at the same time I laud the member for bringing it forward and asking us to debate it

in private members' business. The government has been listening very carefully to what is transpiring today. We're looking at options in Bill 70 that will be speaking directly toward what Mr.

Kormos is bringing up today.

I want to suggest to this House that, indeed, this is a topic that is timely. This is a topic that is going to be addressed. With all of the members'

assistance and help, and the industry itself -- I want to challenge the industry itself to continue to grow in its responsibility and professionalism, to treat the people out there who are using

their services with respect and dignity, and make sure that they don't lose those customers in the long term. So I appreciate the member bringing this to the House's attention. Thank you for this

opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Kormos, you have up to two minutes to reply.

Mr. Kormos: I want to thank all members for their interest in this matter and for their participation in the debate. I welcome the comments

that have noted, among other things, that of course it's not all payday lenders who have to be reined in. But we pass laws against theft to control people who are inclined to steal, to control

thieves, not to control honest people. I understand that.

I reinforce the observation made that it was the resolution passed unanimously by this House on December 16, 2004, sponsored by Ms. Matthews from London North

Centre, wherein this House committed itself to moving on this. I made reference to that, obviously, as you'll recall, in my opening comments.

I want to repeat my gratitude to ACORN. This grassroots organization has done a tremendous job generating familiarity and insight into the impact of bad payday

lenders on low-income people, people on social assistance, people trying to survive on disability benefits. They have played a critical role in bringing this matter forward.

Look, if this bill should receive second reading -- and I sincerely hope that it does -- it becomes the government's bill for the purpose of calling it for

third reading or for dealing with this matter in any way that it sees appropriate.

I ask this chamber to understand and acknowledge this: We have the model. Other provinces have embraced and adopted it. Most American jurisdictions have, and

other countries have. People are being hurt badly. People are being impacted very, very significantly. People's lives are being torn apart by the vicious lending style and the usurious

interest-charging by bad payday lenders. I simply urge this chamber to move quickly on creating a regulatory regime to rein in these operators and protect some of our most vulnerable sisters,

brothers and neighbours when it comes to the attack on them by these operators.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you to all members. The time allowed for private members' public business has expired.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(GÉRANCE DES PRODUITS)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item 69, standing in the name of Mr. Miller. Is it the pleasure of the

House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): To the committee on the Legislative Assembly, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Miller has asked that it be sent to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Agreed? Agreed.

PAYDAY LOANS ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES PRÊTS

SUR SALAIRE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item 70, standing in the name of Mr. Kormos. Is it the pleasure of the

House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I ask that this House refer this bill to the standing committee on justice policy, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall it be referred to the standing committee on justice policy? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1330.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to bring to the attention of the House a very important demonstration

going on outside by our young people. High school students from the Toronto area are bringing attention to a very serious problem of violence against women. I want to congratulate them. The

security has told me that it has been an exemplary demonstration and everything has gone well. I want to thank them for doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): That is not a point of order, as you know.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to a serious situation developing in northern

Ontario.

Recently, I stopped in more than a dozen different communities while driving 3,700 kilometres across the north. Most of the meetings I attended had

representation from the forestry industry. For instance, I met with the mill manager at Red Rock on Lake Superior, where linerboard is produced. I also met with Jacques Dorval, the mayor of

Opasatika. Opasatika is a one-industry community, as are many of the towns in northern Ontario, and its mill is scheduled to close next month. This week, Tembec announced that it is closing four

paper and lumber mills, three in Quebec and one in Brantford. The Brantford closure immediately affects 56 employees.

This is just the beginning. The Ontario Forest Industries Association is warning that as many as 12 forest industry mills are at risk in northern Ontario. The

forest industry makes a huge contribution to northern Ontario. As Jamie Lim, president and CEO of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, points out, "The forest industry is in crisis and the

loss of our industry is a loss for the entire province."

Consider the lost tax revenue, should these 12 mills close: $340 million for the province and $75 million at the municipal level. The association said that the

closures would cause the loss of 7,500 jobs in the north and wipe out 13,000 indirect jobs in the south. Consider the impact on individuals, families and communities.

The Minister of Natural Resources was quoted as saying that he was "quite surprised to hear that a dozen mills are on the brink." I would like to say to the

minister, isn't it your job to know the state of the forestry industry in Ontario? Isn't it about time you did something to address the problem?

REFINERY CLOSURE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): As Inco finalizes a deal to ship raw copper to a refinery in Quebec, the Premier and the Minister of

Northern Development and Mines have done nothing to stop this plan to ship our resources and our jobs out of Sudbury.

I've asked the Premier twice now if he's prepared to intervene in this serious matter. Twice he has ducked my questions in the Legislature. I've written and

called his office, requesting a meeting between myself, himself and Steelworkers representatives to determine what he will do to save these jobs -- no reply.

Some 160 good-paying union, management and support staff jobs will be lost from Sudbury if this deal goes through. This doesn't include the spinoff jobs which

will also be lost locally if the refinery is closed. Yesterday, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines said that Inco has created 125 new union jobs in Sudbury since January 2005. The truth

is that more union members have retired than Inco has hired to replace them. So the union has actually lost members overall. The Steelworkers union confirmed yesterday, and again today, that from

January to May 2005 the union had a net loss of 33 jobs, and in the past 17 months, from January 2004 to May 2005, a net loss of 136 jobs. Losing another 140 union jobs with the closure of the

Copper Cliff refinery is a loss that Sudbury can't afford.

It's time for the Premier and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to get off the sidelines and take a stand. I'm standing with the workers and the

community, who know how devastating the loss of the refinery and the jobs will be. Whose side is the Liberal government on?

SOCCER EXCHANGE

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise in the House today to recognize the 2005 Nunavut soccer exchange involving the Pickering

and Ajax soccer clubs, coordinated by Mr. Terry Gariba.

In May 2004, a group of students from Inuksuk High School in Iqaluit, Nunavut, journeyed to Pickering to play their first outdoor soccer game. While in

Ontario, they were able to see a live Blue Jays game, and Pickering designated a Nunavut Day and flew the territory's flag at city hall.

This year, Iqaluit is returning the favour. Last week, 16 soccer players in Pickering and Ajax had the opportunity to participate in traditional hunting and

fishing, traditional Inuit games, dog sledding and igloo building, and experience drumming, dancing and throat singing, all in addition to an indoor soccer tournament. The soccer club also toured

Nunavut's Legislature and met with its Premier, the Honourable Paul Okalik.

I would like to commend the Pickering and Ajax soccer clubs for embarking on such an exchange, as well as the citizens of Pickering, Ajax and Iqaluit, and

exchange coordinators and sponsors in both the north and the south.

Many Ontarians -- or Canadians, for that matter -- will never have the privilege of experiencing the rich culture of Canada's north such as this. It's thanks

to the Pickering and Ajax soccer clubs that youth in my riding were able to do so.

MISSISSAUGA YOUTH WEEK

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I rise in the House today to acknowledge Youth Week in the fine city of Mississauga, and one of the

recipients of the Mississauga Young Citizens of the Year award.

Youth Week is a festival organized by the Mayor's Youth Advisory Committee of Mississauga to encourage volunteerism and a spirit of community that celebrates

the achievements of young people in the community and that endeavours to foster the leaders of tomorrow.

Some of this week's activities include a city-wide scavenger hunt, a park cleaning, a live concert featuring the best of Mississauga's rising local bands, and

a youth forum dedicated to introducing youth to global issues and critical analysis. The week culminates with Mississauga's Youth Achievement Awards, which honour local youth for outstanding

achievements in all facets of their lives.

One of this year's youth citizens of the year is Naeema Tharani, a resident of my riding of Mississauga East. A grade 12 student at Glenforest high school,

Naeema has served as chair of the Ismaili Youth Club of Mississauga. In this role, she has coordinated volunteer days at the local food bank, organized university tours for the Ismaili Youth Club,

as well as arranged for motivational speakers to come and inspire the club members.

In addition to her role as chair, Naeema volunteers her time teaching math and reading to child refugees from Afghanistan. Through her work with refugee

children, she feels that she can help raise not only their marks but also their self-confidence.

Naeema is a true leader and serves as a role model, not only for the youth of Mississauga but for all of us.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to ask the Legislature to join in the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the

establishment of Ontario's colleges. This year marks 40 years since Ontario colleges were established in legislation. A lot has changed since then, but the need for colleges has not. They were

created to serve those who specifically were not university bound and who were seeking technical or vocational education.

On May 21, 1965, then Minister of Education William G. Davis, who served in the Progressive Conservative government of John Robarts, introduced the legislation

establishing the colleges of applied arts and technology. The bill received all-party support, and I think support for the important work of colleges continues to this day.

Forty years after they began, Ontario colleges have evolved into 21 colleges of applied arts and technology and three college institutes of technology and

advanced learning. These institutions annually serve 150,000 full-time students, close to a million part-time students and employ approximately 30,000 people in 200 communities across Ontario.

William Davis, when asked about the success of colleges in 2003, commented, "The success rate of the graduates of colleges of applied arts and technology in

obtaining employment, which we had all hoped would be the case, has gone beyond what we might reasonably have anticipated."

I ask members of all parties to join in celebrating 40 years in which colleges have helped add to the prosperity of our province. Let us wish them more years

of success.

NURSES

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Last Friday, I had the privilege of visiting with the wonderful nursing staff from

the Henderson site of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. I've now done this three years in a row.

I was delighted to acquaint myself with Andrea, Nancy, Kathy, Jennifer and others, as they led me through a fascinating tour of their nursing world. This tour

opened my eyes to the challenges and successes nurses face daily. Their professional team approach, their ability to keep up with evolving medical developments and the challenges of working in an

ever-changing environment is really quite remarkable. Above all, it was clear that regardless of the circumstances, the patient relationship always comes first.

My guides reminded me that last Thursday was the birthday of Florence Nightingale. Today she may seem like a fairytale character, but as the first nurse in

modern medicine, she laid a foundation for a great profession. Nurses are now highly skilled managers, co-ordinators, leaders and mentors; all this in addition to their traditional role as skilled

professionals and highly efficient and empathetic caregivers.

Last week's Ontario budget had much to offer in our government's ongoing commitment to health care. We are continuing with our plan to make Ontarians healthier

by increasing the number of doctors and nurses and reducing waiting times. For the first time, there will also be predictable multi-year funding for hospitals. This plan should bring more nurses

and quality health care professionals to our wonderful health care teams.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): In 1962, Premier John Robarts appointed Ontario's first electoral boundaries commission and said

that it was "designed to remove the whole matter from the field of politics." Not since that time have we had electoral boundaries changed by legislation without the advice of an independent

electoral boundaries commission -- until now. To revert to the practice of changing boundaries without a commission could be seen as gerrymandering.

In 1970, a committee of this Legislature recommended that a process of appointing an electoral boundaries commission be enshrined in legislation, as our

federal Parliament has done. Although there have been redistribution commissions for every riding boundary change since that time, none has been done pursuant to a provincial act of this

Legislature.

Today I will introduce a bill that will legislate regular reviews of our riding boundaries by an independent commission. Many members of this Legislature wish

to maintain 11 constituencies in the north. The bill I will introduce today will not only ensure that there are 11 ridings in the north for the next election but forevermore.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission (Ontario) Act sets up a boundaries commission to readjust all boundaries in Ontario, leaving the total number of seats up

to the commission but ensuring that 11 remain in the north. This will no doubt lead to a larger number of MPPs in this Legislature, but you can't have it both ways. This process would ensure that

all Ontarians are treated fairly, that voting power is equally distributed to all citizens and that

section 3 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be respected.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the achievements our government is making in

the area of wait times. Our government has set an aggressive agenda with a plan to increase access to MRIs and reduce wait times in key areas, and it's a plan that is very clearly working. In our

short time in office, we've reduced wait times significantly throughout the province.

In Kingston, we provided the Kingston General Hospital with $85,400 to increase hours of operation and add 333 more exams in 2004-05. We've also allocated $3

million to Kingston General Hospital for a new, more efficient MRI which will provide 420 more exams per year. This MRI is scheduled to be installed in 2005-06.

It's not just our government and the public saying that things are better. Today, in the Kingston Whig-Standard, I read, "There will be even more scans after a

newer, faster machine is installed at Kingston General Hospital in late July." This is on top of the fact that, as the Whig-Standard noted, "Waiting times for MRI scans in Kingston have dropped

dramatically in the past six months, both at Kingston MRI and Kingston General Hospital."

We have also repatriated an MRI back into the public realm and increased the hours of operation at that clinic from 40 to 60 hours per week.

The medical community and the patients, along with their families, are thrilled at our reduced MRI waiting times. How far have they dropped? In the Kingston

area alone, the waiting list shrank from about 1,500 under the previous government to about 200 in two years.

People are no longer waiting four to six months for a non-urgent MRI. Our government has made huge headway in improving the quality of health care in this

province.

BOB HUNTER

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Bob Hunter was a trailblazer, a mentor to many of us, a role model, a teacher, an artist, a journalist, an

author, a green crusader of international stature, a hero, a son, a husband, a father and a grandfather.

Bob Hunter's passion and love for this planet inspired a generation, and you could see that at the memorial held for Bob this past weekend. As in life, his

death brought all walks of life together. He left us far too soon, with so much to be done. Fortunately, Bob's spirit will always be with us. Bob always stood up for what he believed, no matter

what the risks, no matter what the cost.

Bob shared his knowledge with us in so many ways: through television, literature and his art, for which he was internationally recognized. In 1991 he was

in 2000 Time Magazine named Bob an environmental hero of the 20th century.

Bob Hunter was our own David Suzuki, our own Jacques Cousteau. As Liberals, we were honoured to have him run for public office under our party banner. He was

relentless in raising awareness about the impending danger of climate change and the urgent need to change our energy regime. Even when he was sick, at a time when he could have given up his work,

he still did not focus on himself; he worked on. He continued to try and make this planet a better place for all of us and for our children's children.

Although Bob has passed on, he has not left us, for all we have to do is enjoy a walk in a conservation area or paddle a canoe or hear a bird sing in a

protected habitat, and Bob is there. From the Galapagos Islands to the Arctic Circle, from the Leslie Street spit to the Oak Ridges moraine, he is there giving us a gentle nudge.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder, with the family here, if we could have a moment's silence in respect of Bob's passing. I seek unanimous consent.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

All rise, and those in the gallery also.

The House observed a moment's silence.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move

its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 186,

An Act respecting the composition of the council of The Regional Municipality of Peel / Projet de loi 186, Loi traitant de la composition du

conseil de la municipalité régionale de Peel.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TYNDALE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

& SEMINARY ACT, 2005

Mr. Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting Tyndale University College & Seminary.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (ONTARIO) ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LA COMMISSION ONTARIENNE

DE DÉLIMITATION DES CIRCONSCRIPTIONS ÉLECTORALES

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 204,

An Act to provide for the periodic establishment of a commission to readjust the number and boundaries of electoral districts for the purposes of the

Legislative Assembly / Projet de loi 204, Loi prévoyant la constitution pério