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

December 16, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Dec-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 16 December 2004 Jeudi 16 décembre 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

CONSUMER PROTECTION /

PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEWCASTLE STARS

CLARE LEWIS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

BLUE LIGHT PROGRAM

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

HEALTH CARE

LEADER OF THE PROGRESSIVE

CONSERVATIVE PARTY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORPORATIONS TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'IMPOSITION DES SOCIÉTÉS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DISCLOSURE OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DISCLOSURE OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DISCLOSURE OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DEFERRED VOTES

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

FISCAL TRANSPARENCY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRES

MINISTRY BRIEFINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY BRIEFINGS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

APPOINTMENT OF HOUSE OFFICER

BUDGET MEASURES ACT (FALL), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES MESURES

BUDGÉTAIRES (AUTOMNE)

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

BUDGET MEASURES ACT (FALL), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES MESURES

BUDGÉTAIRES (AUTOMNE)

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

BUDGET MEASURES ACT (FALL), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES MESURES

BUDGÉTAIRES (AUTOMNE)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should ensure the number of

provincial electoral districts in northern Ontario shall not be fewer than the number of such districts that existed on June 3, 1999.

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

Mr Hampton: First of all, I want to say that I claim no unique intellectual property here for this resolution which I've presented today. In

fact, I want to point out that in the throne speech, which was presented in this Legislature on behalf of the government about a year and a half ago, the government of the day said, "It will keep

its commitment to introduce legislation that ensures a strong voice for the north, by keeping 11 northern representatives in the chamber."

I want to read from the platform of Dalton McGuinty, then-leader of the official opposition, who said during the election, in the Liberal platform called True

North, "We will pass a law guaranteeing that the number of ridings in the north will not fall below 11."

In fact, I also want to give credit to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, Mr Brown, who introduced a private member's bill, Bill 89,

An Act to amend the

Representation Act, 1996 respecting the number of electoral districts in Northern Ontario. I want to in fact read from Mr Brown's private member's bill, because this was introduced before the last

provincial election, and in it Mr Brown makes the following points. He says, "The number of provincial electoral districts in northern Ontario shall not be fewer than the number of such districts

as existed on June 3, 1999." Then he says, "This

section applies when there is a federal readjustment on or after the day the Representation Amendment Act (Northern Ontario) comes into force." So

Mr Brown, the Liberal member for Algoma-Manitoulin, is in some ways the original author of this concept that the number of ridings, the number of seats, the number of electoral districts in

northern Ontario shall not be fewer than 11. Regardless of what kind of distribution or what kind of reduction of seats may happen federally, provincially there shall not be fewer than 11

seats.

Some would say, "Well, if the government has said this in their throne speech and the Liberal Party said this in their election document and some Liberal members

have in fact come forward with this concept, why bring this resolution forward?" I'm bringing this forward because, as we've already seen, this government has a habit of forgetting its promises, or

a habit of not fulfilling its promises or a habit of breaking its promises. I am seeking from the members of the Legislature today a resolution which in effect holds this government to a promise it

made in its throne speech, holds Mr McGuinty to a promise that he made during the election campaign, and indeed holds individual Liberal backbenchers to an idea that they themselves have promoted

in the form of private members' bills here in the Legislature.

I just want to spend a few minutes to go over why Mr Brown has promoted this idea, why I believe Dalton McGuinty promoted this idea as leader of the official

opposition, and why the government came forward in its throne speech with this idea. There are a number of things that I think need to be reflected upon.

First of all, northern Ontario is really quite distinct and different geographically from the rest of the province. Northern Ontario is dominated by the Canadian

Shield.

Whereas southern Ontario in some places resembles the plains of Michigan, and other parts of southern Ontario may resemble the geography of New York or Pennsylvania, northern Ontario is

dominated by the Canadian Shield, which is not true of the rest of the province. So geologically, it's distinct and different.

In terms of climate, it's distinct and different. Over the last couple of weeks we've heard the government refer to that distinction with reference to other

issues.

In terms of employment and industrial makeup, it's different. Northern Ontario is dominated by resource industries: pulp, paper, sawmilling, mining, smelting,

refining. These are the dominant industries across northern Ontario. Even the industries which are not related to resource extraction are resource-based. Tourism in northern Ontario tends to be

resource-based,

whereas what you find often in southern Ontario is cultural-based tourism, certainly not natural-resource-based tourism.

On top of that, there's just the issue of population makeup. Increasingly in northern Ontario, the aboriginal population is growing larger and is becoming more

and more of a large force, population-wise. That is not true in southern Ontario. If anything, the demographics of southern Ontario see more and more new Canadian communities. Whether those

communities be from south Asia, east Asia, the Middle East or the Caribbean, there's quite a distinct and telling difference in terms of the demographics as between northern Ontario and southern

Ontario.

I could go on delineating more and more of the distinctions. Southern Ontario, in geographic terms, is a relatively compact area. Northern Ontario, by any

standards, is huge. Northern Ontario is larger by far than most European countries; in fact, you could say that northern Ontario, as a geographic mass, is about the size of Europe, or close to

it.

So from all of these perspectives and on all of these fronts, northern Ontario is just a much larger, different geographic entity. These were some of the

justifications for Mr Brown's original private member's bill, I assume from Mr McGuinty putting this in the Liberal Party platform and from the Liberal government putting it in its throne speech.

I'm merely here today to call upon members of the Legislature to pass this resolution so that we can remind Mr McGuinty and the government of their promise and their commitment. Indeed, I think

when you put a commitment in the throne speech, you need to see some action. So far, we have not seen action on this issue, and we're calling upon the McGuinty government once again to keep the

promise that was made during the election and afterwards in the throne speech.

I'm not going to use the remainder of my time, because I know that other members want to speak to this resolution. I think I've outlined it fully. I simply ask

for the support of all members to remind the government of a commitment it made in its throne speech, to remind Mr McGuinty of a commitment he made in the Liberal Party platform in the last general

election of the fall of 2003.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate here. I know the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka is

going to speak on this, because he's directly impacted, having shown quite well that taking Parry Sound-Muskoka out of the north was strictly politically motivated.

What we're looking at here today, the resolution brought by the member from Rainy River, is that the Premier has already made a commitment in the throne speech

that he would maintain the number of seats in the north. That is a fact. Currently, under our elected system, the number of seats in the north is 11. Under the new federal boundaries, if they were

to change, that number would be 10. All this resolution calls on the government to do is ensure that there is no reduction in the number that currently exist.

I would add on to that that there shouldn't be any tinkering or gerrymandering with the boundaries, because that's what I suspect is going on with Parry

Sound-Muskoka in terms of what they're doing by taking it out of the north. If it's taken out of the north, then they can say, "Well, we haven't changed the number of seats. The same number are

there that constitute the north." But that's strictly a technicality. That's strictly playing with the language and taking away the rights -- and the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka is going to

talk about that at length -- that people in Parry Sound-Muskoka currently enjoy and have been taken away by this government.

I support the resolution. Certainly, it's important that we make sure that when the next election occurs -- whether it's October 4, 2007, which the government

says they're committed to, but that legislation hasn't actually been passed. They do have the right to call an earlier election under the Lieutenant Governor's existing powers, so we may not make

October 4, 2007. But the fact of the matter remains, we do not know if the current system remains in place, we will adopt the seats that are up in the north, and there will be one less seat in the

north if we adopt the federal boundaries.

I think what we're going to be talking about here is whether the federal Liberals and provincial Liberals are going to play games, especially the provincial

Liberals, in terms of whether they're going to change the riding seats in their favour, they're going to gerrymander and make sure that the boundaries are set up to their pleasure, or what they're

going to do is nothing, just leave the status quo that existed on June 3, 1999. That's really going to be the issue. I think that, as a principle, the government has to be held to making sure that

the boundaries are fair, that there's no gerrymandering to favour themselves and their existing members. That's all I have to say. I know the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka has more to say.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to the motion put forward this morning by the member

for Kenora-Rainy River, and I certainly can say that I'm pleased to support it. I think it's necessary to comment, though, on the rationale that the member has given for bringing it forward. I

appreciate it, because obviously you're supporting our government policy and our northern policy platform, and we appreciate that.

May I say that one of the oddities of the last campaign -- and I'm sure that the member will be thinking of this, and maybe that's why he's bringing it forward

-- is we wondered why you weren't supporting it during the campaign, why you didn't understand the commitments. I would not argue that the member understands the north in terms of the size of the

ridings and the challenges as well as anyone, because of the large riding he has as well. But, as I say, it seemed odd to me that during the campaign, when this was obviously a key issue, the third

party and Mr Hampton himself were not actually supporting this policy at the time. So I'm glad to have you coming to the table; a bit late, but it's good to have you here. I'm glad that you're

supporting it, because it's something that means a great deal to us.

Obviously there are many other aspects of our northern policy that we're moving on actively, and we hope that we'll have your support in those as well. For

example, I believe later today we'll perhaps be having an opportunity to vote on a piece of legislation which will bring our grow bonds program into law, which is something that we, again,

campaigned on. It came from the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce. The chambers tried very hard to get the previous government to support it; they would not support it. I don't

believe that you formally supported it either, in terms of the third party, but we put it in our platform. We brought it forward. This is something that will allow for real investment in small and

medium-sized businesses in the north. So we're very excited about that.

We have the northern Ontario heritage fund, and this year we've got $135 million put into that. Again, I would hope that the member for Kenora-Rainy River would

be supporting what we're able to do in that to also bring some portion of that back to the private sector, which the previous government put down.

So it's great to have you supporting it. Again, my question was, why did you not support it earlier? But it's good to know that you're now on the record

supporting my colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin in terms of his private member's bill, our government and our party's northern policy commitment and our commitment to bring it forward. We actually

had a northern policy.

I think it needs to be said we are very proud of the fact that we had the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines in Thunder Bay and Sudbury a

couple of Fridays ago, I believe, announcing the details of our northern prosperity plan, and we are very excited, as are all northerners, about the fact that we are truly moving forward on those

commitments.

If I may say something else, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, the leader of the third party, made reference to our moving forward on other issues, and he

didn't specify. But I think he was talking about studded tires. Another oddity that happened when our northern development minister announced in the House that we were going to be bringing forward

legislation to make studded tires once again legal in the north was that the leader of the third party was actually in opposition to the studded tires, thinking that northerners wouldn't support

it. As I know he knows now, that was not the reaction at all from people in the north. You were opposed to it.

I won't read all the quotes, as I'm running out of time, but the fact is that northern mayors and reeves --

Mr Hampton: Michael, where is it? Where are the studded tires?

Mr Gravelle: You can say what you want. The fact is, you didn't support it, which seemed rather odd.

There's one other point that I think needs to be made: Whenever the third party talks about their commitment to the north, there's one thing -- and I must admit

it pains me to bring it up again. I haven't talked about it for some time, but one of the things that really rankled me the most, and I think you know where I'm going on this, was that when the

third party was in government, from 1990 to 1995, they made some changes to the heritage fund as well -- they were in support of it -- but on their way out of office when there were real challenges

fiscally for the party, very quietly and very secretly, they basically took $60 million that belonged to the northern Ontario heritage fund and took it out, money that should have gone to the

north, that should have been given to economic development of the north. The leader of the third party knows this is true. They sneaked it out, and it was discovered later by the auditor. That was

one aspect that always rankled me as a member from northern Ontario, and I'm sure you wish you hadn't done it. But the fact is that that was something the third party, the NDP, did when they were

leaving government. They took $60 million out of the heritage fund and put it into general revenue. That was a pretty rotten thing to do, I thought.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear you're with this. I'm glad to hear you're putting forward this resolution. I'll be glad to support it when the time comes to vote.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate today talking about a resolution that has been brought forward by

Mr Hampton: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should ensure the number of provincial electoral districts in northern Ontario shall not be fewer than the number of such

districts that existed on June 3, 1999." I certainly support this resolution, although I was hoping they would be bringing forward a private member's bill, Bill 89, of which Mr Bisson had first

reading on June 7 of this year. I particularly like his bill because in the

section on northern Ontario, it says, "`Northern Ontario' means the territorial districts of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora,

Manitoulin, Muskoka, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timiskaming." As you know, today with the government's time allocation bill to bring Bill 149 before the

Legislature and force a vote this afternoon, Muskoka will be getting removed from the north. I'm, of course, very concerned about that, and I will speak further about that.

I, of course, support maintaining 11 ridings in the north. In the past, the ridings have been bound to the federal ridings, and I think that's a good thing. It

keeps politics out of deciding where the boundaries are. I worry about the government suddenly trying to look at the politics of where the boundaries will be. I note that the member from

Timiskaming-Cochrane was quoted in the newspaper as saying that the riding boundaries in northern Ontario would stay the same, with the exception of the most southerly riding of the north, the

riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. With the removal of Muskoka from the north, which will essentially happen this afternoon, I worry about whether the government is going to start playing politics.

We've heard the term "gerrymander" get bantered around a lot this afternoon. I'll just read the definition from the dictionary. Gerrymander: "manipulate the

boundaries of (a constituency etc) so as to give undue influence to some party or class; manipulate (a situation etc) to gain advantage." That's what I'm worried about as the Liberal government

goes to change the boundaries for northern Ontario, that they will somehow figure out that, "Oh, maybe we can get rid of one PC member of the Legislature by manipulating the boundaries." So I do

worry about that.

I note the member from Kenora-Rainy River talked about the qualities of the north. When you cross into Muskoka, you cross the Severn River, and what's the first

thing you see? The Precambrian Shield, which is what most of northern Ontario is. He made comments that in the north, another quality is its makeup -- more First Nations. Well, in the riding of

Parry Sound-Muskoka, we have seven First Nations. Another unique point about why Muskoka is very similar to the rest of northern Ontario is a sad one: It's the median family income. From 2001 Stats

Canada, Muskoka's median family income is $50,713, compared to North Bay, which is $53,978, Thunder Bay at $59,580, Algoma, slightly less at $49,000, Kenora, $62,990, and Sudbury, $56,118. Muskoka

is below most of the districts in the north. I think the government has confused those who live and work in Muskoka with the wealthy cottagers who come up and visit the area in this move to remove

Muskoka from the north.

I certainly do support maintaining 11 ridings in the north. I mean, you need to go and visit some downtown Toronto ridings, where in five minutes you can walk

around the riding. They may have more people, but in terms of the time the member spends trying to look after the constituents of the riding, it's a very small riding,

whereas in northern ridings

you can spend a day trying to get across the riding. In my case, it's maybe two and a half or three hours to go from one side of the riding to the other. It is a huge riding. The riding of Parry

Sound-Muskoka has 26 municipalities, seven First Nations and a large geographic area. So I do support maintaining 11 ridings in the north, especially for practical reasons of trying provide good

representation for the constituents of the north. I have real concerns about the government starting to play politics in how they go about making this change, especially in light of the fact that

they've gone to the point of removing Muskoka from the north.

I would like to briefly, in the couple of minutes I have left, talk about what has been achieved by this government in the north.

One of their election promises was northern development councils. They've been in power 14 months, and where are the new northern development councils that are

supposed to give information and guidance to the minister? There has been no announcement about that.

There is no comparable funding for small northern municipalities that don't share in the gas tax.

There has been no information on the NOHFC funding, what their plans are to change programs.

There has been no progress on Highway 69, a special interest to the minister when he was in opposition, no progress on Highway 11, no four-laning of Highway 17

in the Thunder Bay area. In fact, in October we had four washouts in one week on Highway 17.

There is no more Leslie M. Frost Centre.

There is no concrete plan to replace coal-fired electricity generating plants in Thunder Bay and Atikokan. That's half the power in the northwest, and the

government has no plan to replace that power. In fact, if they do, they'll probably end up shutting down the mining and forestry industries in the northwest.

There's no northern tax incentive plan. That was something they talked about in their promises.

So there are a lot of noes.

What have they done? They've successfully managed to break their promise when they pass Bill 106 to implement the new health tax, the tax they said in the

election they weren't going to implement, a 27% tax on most average families.

They have successfully passed Bill 100 to break another promise and bring in higher electricity costs.

With their mean-spirited time allocation move this afternoon, they will be successfully removing Muskoka from the north, although there was nothing in the

election about Muskoka coming out of the north. I didn't hear any of the Liberal members or candidates going around saying, "Yes, we think it's a very wise idea that we remove Muskoka from the

north because the citizens there are just too wealthy and they don't deserve to be in the north." I didn't hear any Liberal candidates talking about that. When they made the budget speech, I didn't

see the word "Muskoka" in the budget of May 18. In fact, page 96, hidden in the fine print, was where the notation was to remove Muskoka from the north.

The good thing about this resolution is that it forces the government to actually keep a promise. That's a good thing. I thank the member from Kenora-Rainy River

for introducing it. I do think it's important to maintain the best representation we can for all the deserving residents of northern Ontario.

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): It's my privilege today to get up and support this motion put forward by the member for Kenora-Rainy River. I

would just like to point out, however, that our commitment and our platform, which was a northern-specific platform, was as follows: "We will improve democratically elected representation for the

north. We will pass a law guaranteeing that the number of ridings in the north will not fall below 11." We were that committed to it; we remain that committed to it. We are moving forward with our

promises, and we are keeping our promises in the north. We have done a number of things in the north over the last 14 months that I'm immensely proud of.

We have introduced changes to the northern Ontario heritage fund, and we have made it an economic driver for the north. We've introduced grow bonds. We are

introducing our Go North program, which will promote economic development in the north for the north. And we are returning to our definition of "northern Ontario," which the member for Parry

Sound-Muskoka has some difficulty with, and I will discuss that in a moment.

I'd like to talk for a moment about the Conservative government's record in the north. The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka brought it up. He was very proud of

what they'd done, but I'd like to point out a few things that they didn't do and the abuse that the north suffered under the Conservative regime.

On the issue of four-laning: The four-laning of Highway 11 north to North Bay was promised in the 1950s by the Conservative government. Over 50 years later,

we're still not there. During that time, for the vast majority of those years we had a Conservative government and we had representation in the Parry Sound-Muskoka region from that Conservative

government. The highway was not completed. We are still working on it. We were proud to open 10 kilometres just a few weeks ago between South River and Trout Creek, and we'll be opening six more

kilometres next spring. We are developing a northern highway strategy, which is something that the previous government never took the time to do, and we will be introducing that in the spring as

part of a larger infrastructure strategy.

With respect to hospitals, the Conservative government said that they would not close hospitals. In fact, they did. They do not support our northern hospitals,

either. In my particular riding, the hospital in Mattawa has been housed in portables since the 1970s. They're in dire need of a new hospital, and the Conservative government and our Conservative

member, Mike Harris, was unable to deliver a hospital to the people of Mattawa.

With respect to just general northern attitudes, I find it ironic that the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is up defending the north so vehemently, when he

allowed the member for Oshawa, Mr Ouellette, to speak against more moose tags for northern Ontario hunters. Where is the defence of the north in that policy?

The previous government also allowed hundreds, if not thousands, of government jobs to leave the north and that's a tide that we are trying to stem.

I think the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, if he was really trying to defend the north, would have to acknowledge that Muskoka has very little in common with

Attawapiskat or Rutherglen or Garden Village. Under the northern Ontario heritage fund, we are investing in those communities and protecting the north.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka spoke of gerrymandering and playing politics with northern boundaries. I would just remind the member that it was in the year

2000 that we introduced Muskoka into the definition of the north under Ernie Eves. I'd just like to quote from the North Bay Nugget, which historically hasn't been that supportive of my political

party. But in today's Nugget, John Size, the editor, says that while Mr Miller may be right about playing politics, he agrees with the Ontario government on this one:

"Making Muskoka part of the north was an absurd decision in the first place.

"It became part of the `north' during the Tory regime under former finance minister and Premier Ernie Eves, the long-time MPP who represented the riding before

Miller....

"The reason behind the Tories' decision to include Parry Sound-Muskoka was strictly political.

"It was a way to drop by a few northern Ontario heritage fund cheques off as a slush fund to buy votes -- payback to the riding for being a staunch Tory

riding."

The Ontario Liberal government is keeping its commitment to the north. We are investing in the north in health care. We are supporting the ONTC, which is an

economic driver in my particular area of the north. We have protected it; the Tories would have sold it. They were going to sell one of our economic engines. They were going to privatize it. We

protected it, we are nurturing it, and it is moving forward. They landed a wonderful contract with GO Transit. They have a strategic alliance with Telus through Ontera. They're moving forward.

In education, we're protecting our northern schools. We are rebuilding our crumbling schools and we are empowering our teachers, specifically by passing our bill

yesterday stopping teacher testing, which I would note that the Conservatives again voted against.

We are keeping our promises in the north. We are working for the north. I am a proud northerner. I am proud to see the representation that we have in this

government in the north. The people of the north have a strong voice in the McGuinty government, and I will continue to be part of that strong voice. Thank you for the opportunity to speak

today.

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to join the debate today on Bill 89. I just wanted to clarify for the member from

Nipissing on the northern designation: Muskoka was created about 135 years ago, and for 110 of those years Muskoka was part of northern Ontario. It's been designated as part of northern Ontario for

longer than it has not. The member is over there talking, but my friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka made that point, and I also wanted to put that on the record for him.

I think there are a lot of northern issues that certainly affect the northern part of my riding, being Haliburton county. It's certainly part of the Canadian

Shield and has the second-lowest income, which I've mentioned several times in this House; it's the second-lowest household income in Ontario, second only to Manitoulin Island.

A lot of members of the Legislature represent ridings in the greater Toronto area, and the issues aren't similar to what they are in the remote areas of the

province. Some of the issues we have don't seem important to the urban members here. It's hard to think about the impact, for example, of too few physicians in parts of the province where there's

no health care of any sort within a drive from their home. When we're at Queen's Park, there are medical facilities and several hospitals available just five minutes away. The level of health care

access is beyond the dreams of underserviced northern and rural communities. Our concerns are very basic up there.

I mentioned, in a question this week in the Legislature, for example, the city of Kawartha Lakes, which is in the middle sector of my riding. It's not in the

north, but we're still short 15 family doctors. There are a lot of patients without a doctor. I call them the orphaned patients, back to my nursing days, and we use that phraseology. We just don't

have walk-in clinics around the corner.

In northern and rural communities, most of the towns and villages don't have transit systems, and thanks to the way the province is allocating the gas tax

dollars to municipalities, they won't be getting transit any time soon. This is not benign neglect, as my colleague the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka has mentioned; it's neglect that ultimately

puts lives at risk. I think that these are real issues for real people, and we have to take them seriously.

The bill is not about the track record of the government when it comes to northern issues, neither is it about the promises they've made to northerners that

they're not keeping, because they're treating everybody in the north the same as everyone else: They're just breaking promises to northerners as well as to the rest of Ontarians.

The lack of understanding of the north has played a role in the government's ill-considered decision to close the Frost Centre, as my colleague from Parry

Sound-Muskoka said. I'm quite proud of all the people in the Haliburton and Parry Sound-Muskoka area and across Ontario who have come together to help local communities fight that closure and to

reopen the Frost Centre. But, again, I think this is reflective of the urban focus that this government has. It didn't notice the importance of the Frost Centre. I see many members smiling, and I'm

sure everyone in this Legislature is in favour of reopening the Frost Centre in some capacity; I'm hopeful. We didn't close the Frost Centre. We understood the importance of it when we were in

government.

The bill would amend the Representation Act in order to maintain the number of northern ridings at 11, including the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I just want

to put my bid in that I would like the remainder of Haliburton county to be in my riding. There's a small

section that's in the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka's riding. So when we do the

redistribution with this act, I would like the rest of Haliburton county in with my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

The Liberals are certainly trying to reduce the northern voices to 10 ridings in the new federal boundaries, which would mean there would only be nine ridings

to speak up for the north. Do we want the north to lose a part of their voice in the Ontario Legislature? There are a lot more than 11 rural ridings across the province, but it's next to impossible

to get the government to understand the needs of the north. It's a lot harder to get the point across when there are going to be fewer northern members.

I support this bill. I think the northern voice needs to continue to be heard in the Legislature, where decisions are made every day that affect the lives of

the people of Ontario.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I am just so happy to stand in the Legislature and speak on this motion. It's such an important motion

to northern Ontario. To put this in perspective, we know what it's all about. There was a changing of the boundaries back in the election of 1999, because the provincial government had decided they

were going to start following the federal boundaries. So when I first was elected to this House in 1990, there were 15 northern MPPs, and we 15 MPPs from the north, with that critical mass, had a

bit of an ability to influence the outcome of what was going on here in the Legislature and individually within our caucuses. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the former government decided to

copy the federal electoral map, so we went from 15 ridings down to 10 in northern Ontario, excluding my good friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka. I was in opposition to that at the time. I thought it

was wrong. I thought it was important that we have a sufficient number of MPPs here in the Legislature to represent the north.

Now we're faced with this dilemma. We have this act in Ontario that says, "We're just going to blindly follow where the federal government goes. If the donkeys

who draw up the election maps in Ottawa get it wrong, we don't know, we don't see, we don't care. We're just going to follow, because we're blind." I want to say that I think that's a real really

dumb idea. I want to talk to you about a couple of ridings in northeastern Ontario and how the electoral maps have impacted them.

In my current riding of Timmins-James Bay, I go from just south of the city of Timmins all the way up to Hudson Bay, and from the Quebec border all the way to

about Lake Nipigon, so it's a pretty large geographic riding to deal with. But now, under redistribution federally, it's a really wonky situation. We now have my riding kind of divided into two.

One option is that you can have the federal Timmins-James Bay riding, which is basically Englehart all the way up to Timmins, skip over everything between Timmins and James Bay, so no Smooth Rock

Falls, no Kapuskasing, no Hearst, no Constance Lake -- just fly right over it; it doesn't exist -- and then you go back to James Bay. So you have this riding that is disconnected geographically

from any connection to be able to service it. So you've currently got a federal riding of Timmins-James Bay that says Timmins and everything south to about Englehart, and only the things on James

Bay north of Moosonee. So those people who live in Kapuskasing, Hearst, Smooth Rock, Constance Lake and everywhere in between can't deal with the federal member in Timmins-James Bay; they've got to

deal with their member for Manitoulin Island.

Can you just imagine how dumb this one is? If we had to follow the federal riding, I feel for my friend Mr Brown over how bad it would be, because the other

riding is Algoma-Kapuskasing.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr Bisson: Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing. It basically takes in Nairn Centre, Espanola, Manitoulin, Elliot Lake, goes around Sault Ste Marie

almost as far north as --

Mr Brown: Manitouwadge.

Mr Bisson: -- Thunder Bay, because it goes up to Manitouwadge and you may as well say you're almost in Thunder Bay, and then it skips out

everything in between. The member's got to service Highway 11 from Smooth Rock all the way up to Constance Lake.

I want to put this into some perspective for people. Imagine that you represent the people of Cornwall and your riding is Cornwall and, let's say,

Hamilton.

Laughter.

Mr Bisson: I say that and people laugh, but that's basically what it comes down to. It's actually farther than that. The point is, the federal

member for the Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing riding, Mr St Denis, lives in Elliot Lake, I believe. When Mr St Denis wants to service his constituents in Kapuskasing, there's no highway connecting

Kapuskasing to Elliot Lake directly. He either has to drive by way of Sudbury and all the way back up around to get to Kapuskasing, which is probably about an eight-hour drive, or he's got to go

all the way around the other way, up Highway 11 through Chapleau, or, if he's going up to Hearst, in through the road that connects White River and Hearst. It's really a wonky, wonky riding; it has

no connection whatsoever.

I can tell you that the people of Hearst, Kapuskasing, Constance Lake, Smooth Rock Falls and all the communities in between are really unhappy with this.

They're saying it makes no sense. Even if you have a person who is well intentioned to service the riding, how does a member living in Elliot Lake do a good job of servicing people in Kapuskasing?

It's physically impossible to do.

Mr Brown: But he is.

Mr Bisson: No, but it's physically impossible to do. It's already difficult enough, given the ridings we've got; if we were to follow the

federal ones, it would be even worse.

The first point is that we'd lose members in this assembly, which I think is a bad idea. That's why we support the idea in this motion of saying, "Let's keep

the boundaries as they are for northern Ontario and basically disconnect northern Ontario from the process in the legislation provincially that makes us follow the federal boundaries." Number two,

those particular ridings that the feds have don't make any sense. Whoever is responsible for drawing up the boundaries for the federal ridings is so disconnected from reality that it really is a

silly thing.

I want to be clear. We in northern Ontario don't want to lose any members in northern Ontario in terms of total numbers; in this case 10, if you don't count

Parry Sound; 11 with my good friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka. We don't believe we should be dropping down to nine or 10, depending on how you draw the map. We need to keep a sufficient numbers of

members in this assembly in order to do their jobs.

Now, why is it we're bringing forward this motion, as New Democrats? Let's call a spade a spade. In the last election, the Liberals promised, as we did, that

they would do this if they were to get elected. I want to discount the comments made by Mr Gravelle, saying we were opposed to this in the election. What hogwash. I ran around in the last election,

in my platform, saying exactly that if we were elected as government, we would preserve the number of ridings in northern Ontario. So let's keep that really clear.

Anyway, why are we bringing this forward? Because the government, yes, in the last election, promised this to the people of northern Ontario. And -- give the

government some credit -- they came back after the election and said in their throne speech that they would live up to their commitment of preserving the number of ridings in northern Ontario.

But I want to remind my provincial Liberal friends here at Queen's Park, how long have you been in government now? Is it almost a year and a half? I'm saying,

nowhere on the radar screen have I seen -- I'm the whip for my party, and I see all the legislation. I haven't seen one piece of legislation, I haven't heard the whisper of legislation saying that

we're actually going to have legislation to amend the Election Act, to make sure that you live up to your commitment.

So we want to help you along. We as New Democrats are very good-spirited people, we're very positive about making things work in this Legislature, and we're

trying to help our Liberal friends. We know they have a problem keeping their promises, and we know we've got to put a little bit of pressure on you because, you know, you northern members may not

have the clout that you need in cabinet to make this happen. So by having this motion here, it helps you to lobby your Premier, to make sure your leader keeps his promise. So we want to be helpful.

Mr Brown, Mr Gravelle, Madame Smith and others, we want to be helpful. We say to you, we support -- because we said the same thing in the last election -- the intent of what you said in the last

election vis-à-vis the number of seats, and we're here to be helpful. We want to help you. It's the Christmas spirit. We're just coming up to Christmas. The least we can do is give northern

Ontario a nice Christmas gift and say we will respect northerners in the next election and we will not diminish the number of seats in the Legislature after the next election.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Yes, but you can't trust them; that's the problem. They say it.

Mr Bisson: Well, that's my point. That's exactly our point. We know they have a problem keeping their promises. This is just to help them

along, just to push them along and say, "You have a promise; let's keep it."

Now on a separate point -- and this might be an issue that northern members want to listen to -- there's another thing that we need to do, and it's something

that has to be done at the Board of Internal Economy. For those people who are watching and don't know what I'm talking about, the Board of Internal Economy is responsible for giving the

appropriation of money for members of this assembly to do their jobs. I'm one of the members on that board, as a representative of our caucus.

One of the things that we need to deal with is to make sure that northern members, as all members in this province, have a budget for their constituency office

that allows them to service their constituents. We are now in a situation where -- two elections ago, prior to 1999, the area that I represent basically had two ridings. So we had the riding of

Cochrane North and the riding of Cochrane South. The combined budget to run those two ridings was probably somewhere around $400,000, when you combined the two budgets together.

After the 1999 redistribution, I now represent what used to be two ridings in northern Ontario, because we've gone down to one. Mr Gravelle has the same

problem; Mr Brown has the same problem; my friend Mr Hampton has the same problem. We're operating with budgets that are less than what the total was before. It's a huge problem, and people need to

understand this.

I want to put this into some perspective: Most of us have multiple constituency offices. There are members in southern Ontario who have the same thing, and I

want to say that, but in the north, in ridings as large as mine or Mr Hampton's or Mr Brown's or Mr Gravelle's, in most cases you've got multiple constituency offices. I have to pay rent in two

different communities; I've got to pay staff in two different communities; I've got to pay for phones and fax machines -- all of that stuff to service constituents. Why? It's because they're large

ridings. They're huge geographic areas. To have somebody say, "Well, I've got a problem in Hearst," so therefore they have to drive three and a half hours down to Timmins to get their problem, or

they happen to live in Attawapiskat and they've got to get on a plane to get to Timmins -- that doesn't make any sense. So you need to have a budget to be able to service your constituents. One of

the things that really irks me is that we have never dealt with, at the board, making sure that members have an adequate amount of money in their budgets to be able to service their

constituents.

If I'm in an urban riding, let's say like Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie or Thunder Bay, it's a bit of a different kettle of fish. They're urban ridings. Ask my

good friend from Beaches-East York.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): One end to the other.

Mr Bisson: One end to the other; you can service that riding in one day. So there should be a budget for members in northern Ontario and

Thunder Bay comparable to somebody in Hamilton or Toronto.

But for ridings like ours, there should be a sufficient amount of money to say, "You have enough money to pay the rent for your constituency offices," and

you're not forced to put one person in the constituency office, as I have to do in Kap, because it's not fair to that person. As far as a safety issue and all of that, there should always be a

second person in the office, in my view, and the money so that we can travel and have our staff travel to do the various clinics that we've got to do in our ridings. For example, in my riding --

I'm going to say it here -- since 1999, I have gone over my budget each and every year. In some cases, I've had to pay that out of my own pocket, and it really irks me that I have to do that to

service my constituents. The Legislature has to deal with that by way of the Board of Internal Economy to make sure there's enough money for us to service our constituents.

But then there's another issue, and this is an issue that's only particular to Mr Hampton and myself. Any member in this assembly who decides they want to

attend a meeting or go to a function or visit a constituent can get in their car and drive to see that constituent. It could be an eight-hour drive, depending on how big the riding is, or a

two-hour drive, and then they charge mileage which is outside of their global budget. In other words, it's paid by the assembly and doesn't affect your global budget. Mr Hampton and I don't have

that luxury. Half of our ridings are only serviceable by air. There are not even commercial flights to most of them, so you have to charter. They say, "It's not a problem. We'll give you $20,000

extra to service the northern parts of your constituencies." A charter to Peawanuk is almost $8,000. Imagine if you have to service a riding like mine or Mr Hampton's. Now you've got to make some

decisions: How often are you able to service those constituents who don't have roads, where you have to fly in to visit them? You're limited. You say, "I've only got $20,000, so I can only go to

your community" -- well, you can't even go to all of your communities in a given year. If we have to follow the budget as it is now, especially Mr Hampton -- he has more northern reserves than I

do. But in the current budget structure, I cannot physically go to each of the communities in the northern part of my riding within my global budget. I just can't do it.

How did I respond? I learned how to fly and I bought myself an airplane. But, listen, it's not everybody who's prepared to do that. It's not fair to me and

it's not fair to Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton: And not everybody is prepared to fly with him, either.

Mr Bisson: Exactly. Nobody's prepared to fly with me; that's the other issue.

But it is not fair to another member who will come behind me and who says, "I don't want to learn how to fly, and I don't want to buy an airplane as a

condition of employment." Members should have the right to go to their constituents whenever they need to. If it costs me $60,000 or $100,000, I don't care; that's the cost of servicing your

constituents. If we're going to have large geographic ridings and it costs $50,000 or $40,000 or $100,000 outside of my global budget for me to attend meetings in communities that are fly-in

communities and reserves, and the same thing for Mr Hampton, it should be picked up by the assembly. It's as simple as that. If you don't want to have big ridings, then make them smaller. Have a

James Bay riding only, where that's all they've got to service. Let a member be elected in James Bay to deal with the ridings up there, and you can have some efficiency of scale. But when you're

asking us to have ridings as big as they are now, from Timmins to Hudson Bay, and for the member from Kenora all the way from the southern part of northern Ontario up to Hudson Bay, which is a

larger riding than mine, it's really unreasonable and unfair to those constituents.

I put it on the record today: The Board of Internal Economy has got to deal with allowing members who have fly-in reserves to be able to travel to those

ridings whenever they need to, and if the cost is $50,000 or $100,000 per year per member, so be it.

With that, I appreciate the time that we've had in this debate today and I look forward to all members voting in favour of this motion to make sure we do not

reduce the number of ridings in northern Ontario beyond the point it is now, which is pegged at 11 members.

Mr Brown: It must be Christmas. It is the season, and I'm delighted to be here.

I appreciate Mr Hampton's motion; I might as well say it. I thank the leader of the third party for pointing out that on two separate occasions I had

introduced a bill essentially doing what we're asking today. I would also point out that in the northern Ontario Liberal platform -- we actually had a northern Ontario platform -- this was a

commitment that was made. It was also a commitment that the government made in the speech from the throne. I would remind members that the next election will be -- when is it? -- October 4, 2007,

and the government will enact this legislation by then.

I am thankful, because the member for Kenora-Rainy River has a long history of supporting my initiatives in this Legislature. He'll remember that in the last

Parliament he tried to get unanimous consent of this House for my bill, which would bring Great Lakes Power under rural rate assistance. He vigorously supported my efforts in order to have that

passed. So there's a long history here, Mr Hampton.

It is the Christmas season, it's the holiday season, and it's nice to see that they're finally here.

I'm interested in the Conservatives' approach to this. This was the party that in 1999 reduced the number of seats in northern Ontario from 16 to 11. A third

of our seats were eliminated by the Conservatives.

I was listening to the member for Timmins-James Bay. He was talking about the absolute difficulty with servicing the large, rural northern Ontario ridings. My

friends from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Thunder Bay-Superior North, the two members who spoke for the NDP, Ms Smith from Nipissing and myself all understand the kinds of difficulties there are in

providing service to our constituents over the large area.

This bill doesn't really address that. What it addresses is keeping the 11 we now have. It would be impossible for me to visualize what a Parliament with fewer

northern members might be like. We have a significant impact because the most important member of the northern Liberal caucus, the northern government caucus, of course, is not a northerner at all

but the Premier of Ontario, who vigorously supports our efforts in northern Ontario. We've witnessed a number of things that have happened in very recent history: the changes to the heritage fund

that make the economy, job creation and job growth go forward. We've witnessed the grow bonds initiative, which I'm hoping the NDP will vote for this afternoon; it is something that came out of

northwestern Ontario chambers of commerce. Two western provinces have grow bonds, which have been effective in providing opportunities for business and job creation in those provinces and certainly

will in this province.

So this afternoon, in response to this Christmasy support for our efforts on this file, it's kind of nice to know the NDP is finally with us on these things.

We're very interested to see what the Conservatives are going to do on this particular file, because I heard some people from the front benches of the Conservative Party saying things totally

opposite about this initiative when we mentioned it in the speech from the throne. So when they stand up, as they will at noon, we will be interested not only in knowing the number of Conservatives

supporting this, but who from the Conservative Party is here to support it and who is not. I think that will tell a lot of tales.

So thank you very much for this brief opportunity to intervene.

The Deputy Speaker: I did notice that the third party had 10 seconds left, but perhaps we're now ready for --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kenora-Rainy River, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr Hampton: I just want the opportunity to summarize and to thank members from all parties and all sides of the House for supporting this

resolution.

I want to conclude by pointing out why this resolution is necessary, why it will be necessary to change the electoral law of Ontario. As the law now stands,

Ontario automatically adopts whatever federal redistribution of seats or federal redistribution of ridings happens. I think that's a bad idea for a number of reasons, but if we're going to adopt

what Mr Brown has called for, if we're going to get the government to adopt what it said in the throne speech, if we're going to get Mr McGuinty and the government to adopt what they said during

the election campaign, the electoral law in Ontario will have to be changed. It will have to say that we do not automatically follow the federal redistribution or whatever federal distribution of

seats, ridings and electoral districts may happen. In this case, this resolution calls for there to be no less than 11 ridings, 11 constituencies, 11 electoral districts, in what is defined as

northern Ontario. So that's why this is necessary.

The other reason it's necessary is because we're already seeing that despite this government putting something in their election platform, despite them putting

something in the throne speech, they have broken a lot of these promises, or they've forgotten them. I want them to keep their promise. I want them to keep their other promises too. I want to see

those studded tires. I want to see those Scandinavian studs. I don't know why we don't have them already. I look forward to support from all members for this resolution.

CONSUMER PROTECTION /

PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

Ms Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should take steps to ensure

that consumers are protected from excessive charges and hidden costs in the alternative financial sector and payday loan industry.

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

Ms Matthews: In my riding of London North Centre, a single mom with two children living on social assistance is charged $54.30 to cash her

social assistance cheque at National Payday. If she had gone to a Royal Bank, however, or a TD Canada Trust or a CIBC, she could have cashed that cheque for no charge at all, even if she didn't

have an account at that bank. That means $54.30 that could have been spent on food for the kids was spent instead on unnecessary cheque-cashing fees. If that same woman had cashed that cheque,

worth $1,086, a week before it was payable, she would have paid $112 for the privilege at Moneyline. That works out to over 530% per annum interest on a government cheque that had virtually no risk

of bouncing.

Today, in the heart of my riding of London North Centre, someone is borrowing $100 for three days and paying $18 interest. That's 18% for three days, or 2,188%

annual interest. That is the cost of a loan from the Money Mart located right across the street from the police station at Dundas and Adelaide Street.

This is not happening just in my riding, it's happening in yours too. It's happening right across Ontario. These customers are getting ripped off, and it's

time we, as legislators, used the full extent of our power to protect them.

Payday loan companies and cheque-cashing services are popping up all over the place. From being virtually non-existent just 10 years ago, there are now over

1,200 storefront operations across Canada.

They are a very big business. Money Mart, the largest payday lending firm in Canada, reports over $4 billion in annual transactions. The stores are

predominantly located in low-income neighbourhoods, and they target their advertising and other marketing initiatives to people with low incomes.

According to research into the industry, the best customers, not surprisingly, are economically disadvantaged consumers. That is the group that is most likely

to make habitual use of payday loans or to borrow from several simultaneously. Those in financial distress due to bad credit or recent bankruptcy are also more likely to use the alternative

financial sector, a sector that comprises a number of businesses, including pawnshops, cheque-cashing services and payday loan services.

Payday loans are short-term loans typically under $200 that are taken out to tide someone over to their next payday. There are many, many unsavoury practices

associated with them, including back-to-back loans and rollover loans that trap people into an increasingly deep whirlpool of debt from which they can never escape.

Another problem with payday loans, raised by a consumer debt counsellor in my riding, is that people are asked as part of the application process to sign wage

assignments in the event of failure to repay the loan. These wage assignments attempt to circumvent the legal process that is required to deduct money from people's wages. The debt counsellor told

me that people often don't even recall signing the form. It is one of many forms put in front of them to sign as they wait anxiously for the cash. These wage assignments have no actual legal force.

A court order is required to assign wages, but they are often enforced anyway, despite their highly questionable legality.

A recent series of articles in the Toronto Star in June of this year written by Nicole MacIntyre and Jim Rankin exposed in great detail, using real-life

examples, many of the odious practices of the industry. I urge people to read those articles if they are interested in learning more about this industry, and I congratulate the authors and the

Toronto Star for highlighting serious issues in this sector.

There are many questionable practices in this industry, but perhaps the biggest problem is that interest rates charged are far above the legal limit of 60%,

the maximum allowable level stipulated by the Canadian Criminal Code

section 347. These companies get around this law by charging fees over and above the interest rate: set-up fees, brokerage fees,

per item fees and so on.

Let me share with you a few examples from the Toronto Star investigation. A loan of $100 for three days at Payroll Loans cost the borrower $25.48. That's over

25% interest for three days. It works out to an annual interest rate of over 3,000%. A loan of $120 for seven days from Stop `N' Cash cost the borrower $41, or an annual interest rate of 1,782%.

Just so you don't think that I'm choosing the most exorbitant examples, here's the lowest rate found by the Toronto Star investigators: Cash Now charged a mere 487% interest on a 15-day, $100

loan.

The reasons for the growth of this industry are many. To name only a few: Banks have closed branches in lower-income neighbourhoods and they don't offer loans

for small amounts of money; another reason is that people are increasingly reliant on and comfortable with credit, and income levels in the lowest income brackets have stagnated, causing more

economic instability in that group of people.

But this new industry that preys on the most financially illiterate, the most desperate, is thriving. Some attention, I'm happy to say, is already being paid

to bringing this unregulated industry under control, and I applaud Minister Watson for taking the action in the first year of our mandate.

Bill 70, the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, includes amendments to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and will

require payday lenders to disclose the full credit cost of the loan to their consumers. It goes into effect in June 2005. This is a very good first step, and I urge the drafters of the regulations

to ensure that the costs are posted in a highly visible manner, that they are clearly communicated to the customers and explained in ways that are appropriate, given the low levels of financial

literacy of many customers.

This is an issue that's governed by both federal and provincial jurisdictions, and the federal-provincial-territorial consumer measures committee has been

working to develop a comprehensive national strategy to address the unethical practices of the alternative financial sector. I urge the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, along with the

Minister of Finance and the Attorney General, to put the full force of their weight behind measures that will protect consumers across Ontario from unconscionable practices. In Ottawa, Senator

Madeleine Plamondon has introduced Bill S-19 to amend

section 347 of the Criminal Code that, if passed, will enshrine in law the notion that interest includes all costs associated with borrowing

money, including insurance and administrative fees that are charged on top of very high interest rates. This bill passed second reading just last week and has been referred to the standing Senate

committee on banking, trade and commerce. I applaud the senator's initiative and urge the federal government to make this bill a priority for debate and passage.

Even the industry itself, through the Canadian Association of Community Financial Service Providers, has responded to the increased scrutiny their sector is

under and recently announced a code of conduct that addresses many of the unsavoury practices found in this industry, including the elimination of rollover loans and a commitment to fair collection

practices.

I am encouraged that the industry is showing signs of improving their standards, but there are two very major problems with this code. The first problem is

that it is entirely voluntary. It is not binding on the industry. About 25% of outlets are not even members of the association, and the code is not binding even on the 75% of storefront operations

that are members.

The second problem is that this code fails to address the most glaring abuse in the industry: The interest rates charged are exorbitant, well in excess of the

60% limit allowed under the Criminal Code. Let me quote from a National Post editorial dated December 4, 2004. "Alas, noticeably missing from the code is any pledge to cap interest rates at the

legal limit, which, according to

section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code, is 60% interest per annum."

So I'm asking you to please take our responsibility to protect consumers seriously. Let us not fail to protect some of the most vulnerable people in Ontario:

those with low levels of financial literacy and those who are in desperate financial circumstances. We don't have a problem protecting people from themselves in many other ways, so why would we

fail to respond to this rapidly growing sector that bases its entire business plan on excessive charges to their customers? Let us remember that it is our job as members of provincial Parliament to

represent the public, especially the people who have little power and who rely on us to protect them from corporations that appear to be concerned with little more than their bottom line. Let us

never forget that single mom struggling to feed her two children. Our poorest people are very poor indeed. Let us as a government work together to take the action necessary to protect them from the

hidden costs and excessive charges and help them keep more of their money for the food, clothing and shelter that they and their children need. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate on the resolution from the member from London North

Centre. It goes without saying that consumers should be protected where there is not full disclosure, where there are practices designed to take advantage of their vulnerability. As a principle, I

think that is accepted by anyone in this House. Why it has come to this stage, that a backbench member from the government is bringing forth a resolution that should already have been acted upon

and dealt with from the date Minister Watson took over his portfolio, if he was concerned about this -- because we just put through legislation that was supposed to be dealing with consumer

protection -- I don't know.

Certainly this is symbolic in a sense, but it's not going to do anything unless the minister -- I don't know the reason why this is being brought forth, other

than the fact that maybe she's prodding her own minister to do something, which in her own way is laudable. But why is she doing this? Why is the government not acting -- they are the government --

in dealing with what, as she points out quite accurately, is a serious problem? In a December 15 letter to me, she says, "This industry is a rapidly growing one. In the last decade, the payday loan

sector has grown from almost nothing to over 1,200 outlets across Canada." Certainly it's an industry, a business, and their objective obviously is to provide payday lending.

I was given an

article by my colleague from Cambridge, Gerry Martiniuk: "Consumer Group Pushes for Regulator." They're looking at some new rules intended to

protect customers who use the payday loan services. "But at least one consumer group says that the new rules don't address the real problems with payday lending, won't be enforced strictly and are

merely an attempt by the companies to avoid government intervention in their industry." A code of best business practices was set out in this area.

That's part of the problem: They want self-regulation in a situation that obviously needs government intervention. When we're dealing with what I read today --

"Loan Rollovers Face Axe in the New Year." For the listening public, the loan rollover practice, what they're going to put an end to supposedly, though this is strictly self-regulation -- among the

new rules is the end of a rollover practice used by some companies. A rollover practice, from what they say here in the article, extends an outstanding loan to a customer's next paycheque for an

added fee. So what's happening here is that you've taken out a loan -- these are unsecured loans, as they call them, but this is a way of getting security, because if you come the first time and

say you want this amount of money, and you get that amount of money, you're expected to pay it back at an interest rate and whatever, but if you come back the next time, what they're doing, in

terms of a way of securing their loan, is adding an extra fee.

That practice has been going on, and obviously it's designed to bring some security into the system. Why this is such a popular industry, if you wish, is that

-- what was stated by the president and CEO of the CACFS organization, which is the Canadian Association of Community Financial Service Providers, yesterday, or on December 14, more correctly, from

Ottawa is, "There is a strong consumer demand for small-sum, short-term unsecured credit, and both governments and consumer groups have acknowledged that there is a need for this product. This

study shows that there are significant fixed costs associated with providing small, short-term loans." This is a study done by Ernst and Young.

No kidding. If you're going to get into the business of providing unsecured credit, of course there are going to be costs in terms of your operating costs, of

course there are going to be debts. That goes without saying. That's why people are not going for these short-term hits from a bank or using a line of credit. If they had a line of credit, they

wouldn't be going there. What they're doing is going to these payday loan operators.

In BC, from what I understand, BC officials are probing an Ontario loan firm -- this is provided to me again by my colleague from Cambridge. He's very, very

well researched into this area. The British Columbia investigators are looking into whether Stop `N' Cash, an Ontario-based payday lending company, is charging criminal interest rates on its

short-term, paycheque-to-paycheque loans. This was reported in the newspaper by Jim Rankin, a staff reporter from the Toronto Star, October 15, 2004.

So we've got a situation here where the consumers do need protection. We all agree on it. The government has to move to regulate this industry. Why? It's

because it's a growing industry and, obviously, it's lucrative. Obviously, they've got practices in place to make sure that what appears on the surface to be an unsecured loan doesn't in fact

become an unsecured loan, because the fact of the matter is that they're charging, from what we're hearing here, excessive interest. They're charging fees on the next loan in terms of the practice

they're into. They're making sure that they're getting their money back.

Certainly, this isn't going to be good. I think there's a ripple effect in terms of where this can go, because obviously they're going to enforce their loan

eventually, and they'll do that through the courts or through a credit rating agency. That's where I think we get back to concerns of consumer reporting. If an individual does get in real trouble

with respect to this type of situation, they're going to get their consumer credit rating impacted, obviously, because it's going to go on their consumer credit rating because of the situation

they're dealing with. It may be that they could fix the problem if they weren't being charged excessive interest, if they weren't being put in a position where it's not fair in terms of what they

have to pay.

So I don't think self-regulation is going to work. I think the government is going to have to move in on this industry, because the fact of the matter is that

this industry obviously needs some regulation. The people shouldn't have to go to the Criminal Code. They shouldn't have to go to court in terms of dealing with what is supposed to be a payday loan

operation. It's much more than that, and the government is going to have to act.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm very pleased to rise today to support the resolution brought by the member for London North Centre. If I'm

not mistaken, this matter has come before this House before, brought by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, if not once, possibly twice, because this is a growing problem, the proliferation

of the payday loan offices across Ontario and Canada. I understand there are now 90 companies operating in Ontario, with some 1,200 outlets.

Ernst and Young, in a report issued just yesterday, I believe, estimates that between 1 million and 1.4 million Canadians used the services over the past three

years. That's an outstanding number. They point out -- and this surprised me to a great extent -- that contrary to expectations, the typical customer had an average income of $51,400, which is

basically close to the Ontario average, and that these customers had a steady income, an active chequing account, and most customers own their own home. I, along with many others, just assumed that

the attraction of these outlets was for low-income workers or other persons on government assistance, but it seems there is a very good mix.

What do these shops do, these 1,200 shops we have in Ontario? They provide a very short-term loan, usually under two weeks, and it's for a relatively small

amount of money. The average loan, according to the Ernst and Young report, is $279. So they're providing a service. What seems to be the problem?

Well, the first problem is that I think the proliferation of these shops illustrates the failure once again, I'm afraid to say, of the Canadian bank system in

meeting the needs of ordinary Canadians and small businesses. The banks seem to be more concerned with using our money to increase their exposure in the foreign markets than with satisfying the

obvious demand at home.

The payday shops unfortunately are totally unregulated. There is no protection for the consumer other than a bill passed the other day, which I will mention. I

understand that some of the payday shops are under investigation in BC by the police for possible criminal activity. I was astonished to read that in Ontario, a group of the shops charged an

insurance fee which equated to 25% of the amount. Of course this wasn't done openly, because the insurance fee was paid to a Barbadian company, as I understand it, and then 97% of the insurance fee

was rebated back to the loan shop as a secret commission. We sometimes question our neighbours to the south in the US, but I think that if this had occurred in the United States of America, these

individuals would now be residing in jail. Not in Canada: They got a slap on the wrist and they're still going about their business, though they have stopped the secret rebates, as far as we know

at this stage.

Recently the industry in Ontario and this Legislature provided for full disclosure of the cost of such loans. But this certainly does not go far enough to

protect the consumer. That's why I'm very pleased that the member for London North Centre has chosen to use her valuable choice in bringing this resolution. The resolution before us recommends

controls on the cost of borrowing. That is the innate problem with the operations as presently flourishing in Ontario, because the interest rates taken on an annual basis, if you include the

various costs -- insurance and other fees -- I understand can range up to 900% per annum, far exceeding the usury rates as set forth in the Criminal Code.

I understand that the government and the Minister of Consumer and Business Affairs, Jim Watson, is studying the matter and will be meeting in June 2005 to

discuss the matter with other ministers. This may be a Canadian problem but, more importantly, it's a problem in Ontario that affects our consumers, and we do need action now. I think it's an

urgent problem, and this resolution will be wholeheartedly supported by myself and members of the PC caucus. Again, I thank the member for London North Centre for bringing the motion.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It's a pleasure to support this, but I have to tell you that, in doing some research, I came across an

article in the Ottawa Citizen dated December 4, 2004, which is just a little over a week ago. I'd like to read into the record the last few paragraphs of that

article because I think it sets it all

in a nutshell. I think the author is to be commended. He writes:

"In one of the few court cases involving payday lenders, an Ottawa judge this summer ruled that one payday loan company's 290% annual charge was `interest at a

criminal rate.' The company was ordered to repay all interest above the legal 60% limit. Over three months, the borrower had paid $728 in interest and charges on a $1,000 loan. The loan company

also seized his car, sold it for $1,211, and said he still owed them $576.

"These moneylenders are probably useful to people in desperate financial straits, but the fees they charge are obscene. Why does the government continue to let

them get away with it?"

Then it quotes the minister:

"`I think we're going to have to be more aggressive,' Consumer and Business Affairs Minister Jim Watson says. The payday loan industry `is growing at a pretty

rapid rate, and I'm just afraid that there are too many vulnerable people who are going to get caught in these cycles of debt, to the point where they are going to end up being bankrupt at the

hands of a payday loan operator.'

"Despite that concern, the Ontario government isn't exactly moving at top speed. Canadian consumer affairs ministers will issue a position paper on payday

lenders early next year, then discuss it in June. Action might follow, but it will need to be coordinated with the federal government, Watson says.

"It's difficult to fathom how a provincial government that's prepared to tell us what snacks kids can eat in schools can stand by while consumers are

victimized in apparent contravention of the law. What's wrong with enforcing the rules we already have?"

That's a good

article and I think it has done it all in a nutshell.

Today we have a motion, which I'm going to vote for and I'm sure every member of this House is going to vote for, but it is in fact a motion asking that this

minister do what should be readily apparent to every single person in this House, indeed every single person in this province: It is a motion to ask him to do his job. This is a backbench MPP, one

who has, I'm sure, the public interest at heart, asking her minister to do what is so obvious.

The government of Quebec has already decided that this is an illegal activity, and they have outlawed it in large part and licensed that which remains. If the

minister is looking at what to do, he doesn't need to have a round table in Ottawa. He doesn't have to have discussions in June. He simply has to get on the phone and ask the Quebec government to

send by fax or by e-mail a copy of their legislation. We could have that legislation in front of this House today. We could pass it this afternoon. That is what is important, not so much this

motion asking him to do something but the reality that he actually does it.

The Criminal Code of Canada, for nearly 50 years, has set out an interest rate cap of 60%. Anyone who charges above 60% is deemed to be loansharking. Everyone

who charges above 60% can go to jail for it. Everyone who charged above 60% in the days before this Criminal Code provision was deemed to be a loan shark. Today, we have legalized loan sharks with

storefronts in virtually every city and town in Ontario, with signs: "We'll give you money till payday." But what they don't tell the poor unsuspecting and sometimes illiterate people who walk in

there is that they are going to be ripped off in a way they cannot possibly imagine.

There is nothing here before us except the goodwill that the government will some day do something right. I will tell you, if the government is keen on doing

something right, they will stop what are called rollovers. That's where a person goes in and pays the interest and is told, "Well, that's OK. We'll roll it over to your next paycheque," and most of

these companies consider that to be a brand new loan.

So if you take out a $500 loan, if you pay the standard interest, which is at 268% -- that's the average in Ontario -- and make loan payments each and every

month of about $110, at the end of the year you will have paid $1,350 to this company and you will not have paid off a single penny of the principal. This government needs to stop rollovers -- not

talk about it. They need to do it today, especially in view of the Christmas season, when desperate families are out there trying to find a few dollars to put a toy under the tree or a little bit

of food on the table. No matter how poor you are, you want to celebrate this Christmas season, this holiday season in Ontario, and many of the most vulnerable people get ripped off, particularly at

this time of year.

This industry, if you want to call it an industry -- I would like to call it more like organized loansharking -- now proposes to regulate themselves. I read

the press release of Peter Kormos, which was put out yesterday or perhaps this morning. He knows how to turn a phrase, and I'd like to steal this from him, although I am giving him credit. He puts

it this way: "Asking payday lenders to regulate themselves is like asking Al Capone to guard a bank."

I think that if all this government is intent on doing is asking this industry to regulate itself, if that's all the minister is going to do after he comes

back from Ottawa, if that's all that's going to happen next June, then we simply want no part of it. This is an industry that needs to be shut down. This is an industry that needs to be stopped in

its tracks. This is an industry that should not be on the streets of the towns and cities of Ontario.

If you're in Ottawa, as Minister Watson is, and you cross into Hull, you will go from having dozens and dozens of payday loan operations on Bank Street,

Bronson Avenue and all the other streets in Ottawa, to having absolutely none in Hull. If he wants to know how to do it, if this government wants to know how to do it, simply cross the river and

see how it is done. It is done because it is not allowed.

We need to stop these payday loan people from extending outstanding loans to the next paycheque. They have said they're going to regulate themselves that way.

They're going to extend the outstanding loan to the next paycheque that some poor individual might get in, whether that's a welfare payment or something from the place they work.

The minister was quoted, and I'm quoting him from this same story: "`I think it's a good first step,' the minister says." Wrong. It's not a good first step. It

is not a good step from this industry. All that is going to happen is, they're not going to do the rollovers; they're going to do new back-to-back loans, which are still there and which some of

them rely on, or consecutive loans, which are also in their arsenal. If they don't do the rollover, they'll do one of the other two.

The minister is naive if the minister thinks that this is a good first step. It is, in fact, not a good first step. It is simply allowing them some other

loophole that they're going to take advantage of. It is to justify an extension of time to them until next June, when they need to be stopped today.

There was a man in here watching or listening to the proceedings the other day, and I'd like to tell his story. His name is Rob Ferguson. He was sitting here

listening to a question that was asked by my colleague the member from Niagara Centre. This is Rob Ferguson's story.

Rob Ferguson is legally blind. Rob Ferguson lives on his ODSP payments, as meagre as they are, and I believe they're somewhere around $1,100 a month. Rob

Ferguson had a dream that maybe one day he could get off ODSP, and he wanted to start up a small business. He went to a payday lender last year. This was a big, big mistake. He took out a $200

payday loan. Then he had to keep borrowing, because at the end of every week he had to pay back the $200 loan. So he got himself caught in a vicious cycle. He has had to borrow first from one

lender and then from another to pay off the first lender, and then from another to pay off the second lender. He's had to borrow $210 since then from Cash Advance, $200 from Stop N Cash,

and $690 from the Cash Store, all to service this first $200 loan. Over the past few months, he has literally repaid hundreds of dollars over top of the $200 loan. What has happened is, with the

rollover policy, he couldn't pay any more, so they simply kept rolling it over and rolling it over.

At the end of this month, on January 1, Rob Ferguson owes the following amounts: He owes Cash Advance $400, he owes Stop N Cash $300, and he owes the

Cash Store $950. This poor man, at the end of this month, has to pay $1,650 for taking out a $200 loan, a man who's legally blind, on ODSP, and who had a dream of starting his own small business --

a dream, I might say, that has been shattered, a dream that will never come true. In fact, if he doesn't pay that, the only alternative, and what this company has threatened to do, is to take his

entire ODSP payment that he will get on January 1.

That is who they are. I want to say that there is probably no more reprehensible group in our society than these guys, these thugs.

I'm telling the member opposite, I'm going to vote for her motion, but I can't wait. The people of Ontario can't wait. I don't want a ministers' conference in

the spring. I don't want to wait until June. I don't want to wait. I want the minister and your government to do what needs to be done today. You merely have to go to the province of Quebec and ask

them. The legislation will come in both official languages. It can be read and implemented.

The minister needs to do the following, and it's absolutely important:

The first is that there needs to be an interest amnesty so that interest cannot be charged above 60% contrary to law.

The minister, in his legislation, needs to lay charges, and needs to do it even before the legislation comes down. Instruct the Ontario Provincial Police, the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the police forces of all of the municipalities to go in and lay charges against every single one of these companies wherever more than 60% has been levied. We know

there's one court case and, by God, I know that there are sympathetic judges out there who will throw these guys in jail if that's what needs to be done, because that is what needs to be done.

We need to have immediate legislation based on Quebec. We need to have interest rate caps. We need to have laws that do not permit rollovers, extensions or

back-to-back loans.

If these companies are to exist in any guise at all in the future -- I hope not, but if it's legally impossible to stop those storefronts from remaining --

they need to be licensed, as they are in the province of Quebec. There needs to be legislation that allows us to fine them whenever fines are necessary. We have to have the authority to refuse

licences for anyone who has been convicted of usurious lending. We need to be able to have revocation of the licences.

We need the authority to publish all the complaints. In this city, if a restaurant has a dirty kitchen, there is a poster on the front that says they were

complained about in the past six months, even though they may have cleaned it up. We need to have that same complaint form, that there have been complaints about the usurious interest, on every one

of these right in the front window so anyone who goes in there is going in with that knowledge and that understanding: "This is a rip-off place. The government of Ontario says so. We've had

complaints in the last six months."

We need public disclosure of corporate structures. I want to know who's involved in this. If there's public disclosure, we may come to know that a lot of this

is criminally run, and if it isn't, it's offshore, and if it isn't, it's still probably illegal. We need to have a structure, when the new law comes in, of reporting to regulators of fines, of

education and of reporting to the Legislature.

All of us can grouse about the banks in this province, but if the banks ever did this kind of stuff, we would shut them down too. I'm asking the member --

we're voting for this -- to tell the minister we can't wait till June.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I too want to compliment my colleague for bringing forward this resolution. It's a

really important discussion we're having, and I want to thank her for initiating it.

A while back, when I was contemplating getting involved in provincial politics, one of my daughters and I were having coffee at Tim Hortons, and when I asked

her about her thoughts about coming to this place, she said to me, "You know, Dad, you've been involved for some time now in jumping in the river and rescuing people municipally, people who were

struggling against the current. I've been thinking that maybe it's time you went upstream and looked at who was throwing them in." I think, in some significant way, that's what the member is doing

this morning. We need to go upstream, I would dare say together, in the context of accepting our responsibility in this people's place to defend people who are often living on the fringes of life

in the debt cycle that my honourable colleague opposite talked about.

We've got folks in our society who, sadly, are quite prepared to exploit people on the fringe, the greedy lenders who take advantage of needy borrowers who get

into a cycle that is just impossible to get out of. I think it's the role of government to get involved in situations like that, to intervene. Some have used the term "financially illiterate." If

that's true, to whatever extent that's true, there's a particular onus on government to get involved.

We get involved to protect, as my colleague said, the quality of food in restaurants. We're talking aggressively about closing coal-burning plants, having to

do with the air we breathe. We moved yesterday to bring in the strongest prohibition against second-hand smoke, smoking in the workplace -- all of those, quite justifiably, to protect the common

good. Here we've got a situation where we need to move together to protect people and in the common good.

In that context, referencing my colleague's admonition calling on the Minister of Finance, the Attorney General and the Minister of Consumer and Business

Services to, I think the phrase was, "throw the full weight of their offices behind changes," I'm pleased to report that a recent letter was sent, co-signed by the Minister of Finance, Greg

Sorbara, and Michael Bryant, our Attorney General, and Jim Watson, to the Honourable Irwin Cotler, the Attorney General of Canada, drawing attention to the provincial-federal-territorial working

group known as the consumer measures committee and some of the recommendations they have made around controlling this industry and really highlighting for the justice minister the belief of the CMC

that this is an issue desperately crying out for some federal leadership and some amendments to the Criminal Code.

There were some references already to consumer awareness, the need for credit disclosure, fair collection policies, limits on alternative consumer credit

market loans and rates, the obvious amendments to the Criminal Code, limits on loans, perhaps to a fixed percentage of a borrower's net income, coupled with, the CMC has suggested, government

regulation with broad oversight, enforcement and disclosure requirements.

We also need to be talking to the bank about appropriate adjustments to the Small Loans Act so that those with particular credit difficulties can, under some

prudent guidelines, have access to some of the funds they need.

Again, I want to commend the member for her initiative, and I want to urge all of the members in this place, particularly on private members' day, to join

hands, to walk upstream, to spot those who are throwing people in the river with the rapidly moving waters up to that precipice from which they can't return, and to stand together and say, "Stop.

We've had enough."

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): C'est un plaisir pour moi de me joindre à ma collègue la députée de

London North Centre. Je la félicite d'avoir présenté cette résolution, une résolution qui a pour objectif la protection du consommateur.

Hier soir, j'ai pris la rue Yonge ici à Toronto. Sachant que nous étions pour discuter de cette résolution à la Chambre aujourd'hui, j'ai

visité une des entreprises pour m'informer davantage sur la façon dont nous fonctionnons. J'ai les pamphlets ici. Puis, laissez-moi vous dire que, après avoir visité cette

agence sur la rue Yonge, dont on en compte huit à partir du Centre Eaton jusqu'à la rue Bloor, je suis rentré à deux endroits différents. J'ai posé plusieurs

questions. Mais, malheureusement, ils se sont aperçus que je m'informais concernant une discussion que nous avions eue à la Chambre ici hier et que, possiblement, le tout était pour

revenir. Je ne sais pas où elle aurait appris son information. Mais à Toronto, nous comptons 123 de ces entreprises qu'on pourrait appeler des points de vente, dont les 123

représentent 12 différentes agences. La majorité sont affiliées avec la Western Union. Western Union Canada a 2 800 points de vente au Canada et 196 000 dans le monde

entier.

En retournant au bureau à 10 h 30 ensuite, j'étais sur mon Internet afin de trouver de l'information additionnelle. Oui, c'est vrai qu'on

en profite. Comme souvent les gens nous disent, ce sont des « money grabbers ». On ne peut pas dire d'autres mots. Je regarde ici un

article paru dans le National Post de

Toronto. As stated by Laurie Campbell, in some cases, total lending costs translate into loan rates topping 1,000%.

Let me tell you that lately I received a phone call, because we have some in eastern Ontario too. This what they call money-grabber manager called me. He said,

"Mr Lalonde, I want some help from you." I said, "What do you mean? What type of help? I'll see what I can do." He said, "I have this lady who is on welfare, on Ontario Works, who has signed this

post-dated cheque, and now that her time is up, I went to the bank to cash that cheque and the bank refused to cash the cheque." I said, "Definitely, I have to call this bank manager back and

congratulate this bank manager because you cannot withdraw any money that has been received by an Ontario Works recipient."

Those companies really go after people who are sometimes in urgent need. Through my past experience, those who are going to knock at those doors or visit those

money-grabbers, I am told they're called --

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thieves.

Mr Lalonde: I'm not going to say they're thieves. You're saying that.

It does happen quite often to hockey players, especially -- if I look at the London Knights today, they're the top team in Canada. Around Christmastime -- and

I've lived the experience, because I used to run a junior hockey team -- those hockey players needed money to buy gifts for their girlfriends, for their mothers, because they'd been away from home

for a certain period of time. They go and knock over there. They get $55 a week to play hockey in major junior hockey, but they just can't afford to get the money at the last minute. I've seen a

person pay interest rates of over 1,100%.

Let me tell you that in all those places that I was looking -- there are 12 in Toronto -- the interest rate varies from 891% per year to Money Mart, which is

519%. This is why today all in this House have to support the motion brought by the member for London North Centre.

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm very pleased to stand in support of my colleague the member for London North Centre, who has

brought this very important issue before the Legislature today. I recall sitting with my colleague for London North Centre when we had some Ontario Works hearings in Etobicoke. We talked about this

issue and the lack of opportunity for those who are living in a cycle of poverty, caught by cycles of debt, to be able to get out of that cycle. I think at that time we both really started thinking

about, as legislators, as advocates, what we could do to bring this issue to the forefront in response to a number of journalists who, I have to say, have been doing an excellent job of bringing

this issue up.

I just want to talk for a couple minutes about what we can do and who are the individuals we all need to watch, as advocates in our community, to help deal

with these issues.

Obviously, what we're talking about today is a cycle of giving loans where you provide a loan for a very short period of time for generally a very small sum of

money, based on individuals who are caught up in a cycle. It allows those individuals to prey on those in our community who are vulnerable.

I have to say that there has been a proliferation of payday loans and other businesses in this industry coming into my own riding in Etobicoke. They target

poorer areas, areas that are underserviced by our bank branches and those who, unfortunately, are living paycheque to paycheque, those who are financially illiterate, those who have no other means

of securing credit, those who have no savings, no investment and who are desperate consumers: the low-income and the vulnerable. I guess what I'd like to talk about is what we can do as

legislators.

I asked for a

section of the Criminal Code today and I pulled out

section 347. It's not user-friendly, if you're going read it, so I won't share the wording

with all of us here in the Legislature. But at its heart, it is a

section which is expected to capture an interest rate as being illegal if it is over 60%. What we have to ensure is that those

individuals who are using the services are educated. So what can we do?

We are examining regulations, as the consumer affairs minister has said. We can also, as the Premier has committed, speak to the financial sector to step in

and service the areas and service the needs in our communities for those individuals who need their cheques to be cashed. When we spoke to individuals in Etobicoke, we found out that many

individuals in fact were not aware that they could go to a chartered bank to do that.

We need to educate for the wise use of credit. We need to follow some of the jurisdictions in the US who have clamped down on this sector, who have regulated

this sector, and also to help those individuals in our community who are caught in this cycle. As someone who has litigated bank contracts in the past, there is a lot of information in those bank

contracts which is not necessarily easy to read or user-friendly. We need to make sure, at the very least, that it is absolutely crystal clear what the annualized and effective interest rate is --

no hidden costs, no additional charges -- and to make sure that those who are not abiding by the law are being prosecuted.

As advocates in each of our communities, it is our job and our opportunity today to give a voice to those who cannot be heard. I know that we've had some

individuals say, "Well, there are very few complaints about this sector." Perhaps we should look at the fact that there are very few complaints about the sector because of who the individuals are

who are being caught and who are vulnerable as a result of this sector.

I'm proud to stand in the Legislature today to be a voice for those people in Etobicoke-Lakeshore and across the province who don't have a strong voice, to be

an advocate on their behalf and to say, "We here in this Legislature are watching out. We want to do what we can to make sure that this sector abides by the law and that you are protected and not

vulnerable."

The Deputy Speaker: The member for London North Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms Matthews: I have to say I'm delighted with the expression of support from all parties in the House. I would like to thank the members who

took the time to prepare and speak to us today. The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and the member from Cambridge expressed their wholehearted support and reinforced a call for action now. The

member from Beaches-East York made an impassioned plea, offered very specific advice on what needs to be done immediately and reminded us of the gentleman who was with us in the House earlier this

week.

My colleague from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot reminded us that the role of government is to protect the common good and to protect consumers. This is

something we're hired to do, so let's do our job. His reference to going upstream and finding out who is causing the problems is something we should keep in mind. The member from

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell -- I appreciated his undercover work on Yonge Street, even though he failed, I suppose: He had to go on the Internet to find out what was going on in this industry. I

also appreciate his reference to the London Knights. Thank you very much.

The member from Etobicoke-Lakeshore recalled that this issue came up at a meeting we had in her riding. I appreciate her constructive comments on what steps

need to be taken.

The government has taken steps on this, and they're important steps. We need to do more. I appreciate the support of the House on this.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We'll first deal with ballot item number 47. Mr Hampton has moved private member's notice of motion

number 37.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll deal with this after the next item.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 48, standing in the name of Ms Matthews. She has moved

private member's notice of motion number 33.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item 47. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Martel, Shelley

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

O'Toole, John

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Martiniuk, Gerry

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 1.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed from 1207 until 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEWCASTLE STARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I want to pay tribute to the hockey superstars that made Durham region proud. On December 5, the Newcastle Stars

novice rep hockey team won the prestigious Silver Stick tournament in Wasaga Beach against the hometown opposition by 4 to 0. Because of their win, the team will travel to Michigan in the

new year to compete in the International Silver Stick tournament. I'd like to congratulate the players: Marc Ouellet, Ryan Taylor, Ben Choiniere, Joshua Turner, Connor Sikma, Dylan Owen, John Wood,

Thomas McHardy, Hayden McCool, Jacob Vanhaverbeke, Adam Young and Brent Sikma.

Also, this morning I received a leaked confidential memo from Team Santa headquarters in the North Pole, outlining who has been naughty and who has been nice.

While the Newcastle Stars are on Santa's list -- they've been nice, of course -- it's my dubious distinction to inform the Minister of Energy that he is on the naughty list.

The minister awarded a fat power generation contract to his friend Mike Crawley, the Ontario president of the Liberal Party of Canada, then flip-flopped on his

promise to shut down all coal-fired generation stations by 2007. Now he has been saying that they're going to keep the plants on-line "just in case." Another broken promise.

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, to you and to all members of the House, and specifically to the Minister of Energy. Santa has advised me to place a piece of coal

in his stocking for Christmas. Keep careful watch, I'd advise the minister, because he's going to need this piece of coal to keep the lights on in the province of Ontario. Here is the piece of coal

for the Minister of Energy. I'll ask one of the pages to take it over to his desk.

CLARE LEWIS

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I'm happy to stand in the House today to recognize the long and outstanding career of Mr Clare Lewis, the

fifth Ombudsman of Ontario. Today will be the last day that Mr Lewis will serve as Ombudsman while this House is sitting.

Mr Lewis was appointed Ontario Ombudsman in January 2000. Since then, he has used his extensive legal background from his previous role as a lawyer, prosecutor

and judge to resolve complaints with the Ontario government. Over the last four years, Mr Lewis has been an important advocate for patients in psychiatric hospitals, seniors, children with

disabilities and many others. Mr Lewis has been an important voice for those who are often left voiceless.

Mr Lewis has also raised the profile of his office, and is not only recognized here in Ontario but is recognized around the world. In October 2002, Mr Lewis

was elected president of the International Ombudsman Institute. Mr Lewis has been an important ambassador for Ontario and a representative for fairness internationally.

Mr Lewis once said, "My job is to lift the veil on government work and act as a buffer between the government and Ontarians."

Mr Lewis has left some very big shoes to fill and he has set the standard for fairness and accountability. For four years, he has served as the conscience for

our government, and I would like to say thank you: Thank you for your service, thank you for your guidance and thank you for your integrity

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I too, on behalf of our party, congratulate Mr Lewis.

I rise today to talk about broken promises and, more specifically, broken Liberal promise number 162: "We will require public hearings for all major

legislation."

We recently learned that the government wrote to concerned stakeholders with respect to proposed changes to the DAC system in automobile insurance in Ontario;

that's the designated assessment centre system. They want to eliminate it without public consultation. Further, they will not even be consulting the members of this Legislature. A change of this

magnitude should take place by way of legislation, not by regulation, as they have proposed, and with full consultation.

Indeed, on October 4 in estimates committee, I asked the Minister of Finance whether he would be consulting and he said, "We will make sure we have the

considered opinion of the members of the Legislature as we bring forward our next package of reforms."

The opinion is that we need to have some time to consult on this proposed change in the regulations. They affect automobile drivers across the province of

Ontario. The proposed deadline for consultations is January 7, which, as you know, is over the Christmas holiday season and is totally inadequate for those concerned about the issue in Ontario who

want the time to have their say during the course of the consultations. I commend extended consultations to the members opposite and to the minister.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The government of Ontario downloaded responsibility for administering provincial offences courts in the

prosecution of large numbers of provincial offences on to municipalities, but of course it's the province and the Attorney General who retain the power and responsibility for the integrity of the

administration of justice, and for the appointments of justices of the peace to staff those courts that are being administered by municipalities.

This government, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, have remained heedless to the urgent call by municipality after municipality, particularly in the central east

and central west regions -- central west includes, of course, the regional municipality of Niagara. This government has refused to heed the call of those municipalities for an immediate appointment

of new justices of the peace so that these courts can be staffed and operated.

Closing provincial offences courts because justices of the peace are not available brings the administration of justice into disrepute, and it threatens the

ability to prosecute offences due to institutional delay. The problem is immediate, urgent and capable of swift resolution. The crisis this government is going to create once again in courts in

this province is going to have untold consequences if this government doesn't move promptly and start appointing justices of the peace, if this government doesn't accept its responsibility and

fulfill its part of the bargain with those municipalities.

BLUE LIGHT PROGRAM

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I rise to bring to this House's attention a very important initiative by some of my members in the riding of

Niagara Falls called the Blue Light program. This program asks residents to put blue lights in their Christmas holiday windows and tie blue ribbons on their car antennas to show support for law

enforcement officers who have given their lives in the line of duty and for those who continue to work for the safety of their community.

The program needs to shine brightly with the Christmas spirit and has been doing so in Niagara Falls since 1998. A committee headed by Yvonne Zanussi and Robin

Agenta promotes this bright blue idea. The committee owns a mascot that takes

part in the annual Niagara Falls Santa Claus parade. During the parade, supporters hand out candy and blue light bulbs

to further this memorial project.

Supported by community service clubs like the Chippawa Lions Club, and business communities such as Star Warning Systems, they provide candles for people to

shine their blue bulbs in. The idea is to have one significant blue light, and not just one on a string, to recognize fallen officers.

This year the Blue Light Committee in Niagara sent candles to stations across Canada to ask them to shine their lights. We hope this will continue throughout

Ontario and across Canada, and we ask the House to recognize those who are involved in it.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Here we are on the last day of the session, and I just felt I had to respond to the government

House leader's glowing assessment of the McGuinty government's performance.

Yes, it's been quite a performance, but not in a positive way. It's been a time of broken promises and sheer incompetence: a government that jeopardized the

privacy of 27,000 individuals because they couldn't do a mail-out properly; a government that declared war on doctors and hospitals, leaving doctors shaking their heads at the absolutely

unbelievable inconsistency in the government's approach: "We'll impose. We'll negotiate. Take it or leave it. Let's talk."

The question is: What's next? They've left hospitals wondering how they're going to continue to operate. They've tried to ram through a poorly conceived piece

of greenbelt legislation without proper public hearings or input. They've tried to muddy the waters by pushing through bills of little consequence, while ignoring the real issues and continuing to

break promise after promise. It's a government that wants to take your money and be your nanny.

I fear some stockings this year will have little more in them than a note saying, "Sorry, I spent it on the McGuinty broken promise, punishing health tax."

Having said all that, I still move that there be no suppression of joy and happiness this Christmas.

HEALTH CARE

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Ontario patients have told us that wait times for common procedures have been unacceptably long,

and we have listened. From my visits to organizations and health facilities in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I understand that protecting the health of Ontarians is essential, and this

government will continue to work to transform health care to reflect these values.

This Tuesday, I had the pleasure of visiting the Trillium Health Centre with Minister Smitherman, along with my Etobicoke colleagues, to deliver the great news

that our government is tackling wait times in the health care system by delivering 5,380 more cancer, cataract and hip-and-knee replacement surgeries in Etobicoke. Our wait-time strategy will

provide people with better, faster access to critical medical services. This will ease pain, reduce suffering and ultimately save lives.

This is not the only good news in Etobicoke-Lakeshore these days. I campaigned to advocate for greater funding and expansion of services at the two amazing

community health centres in my riding, LAMP and Stonegate Community Health Centre. I advocated and fought for increased services because after 10 years of Tory neglect, the people of Etobicoke

couldn't stand any more cutbacks, hypocrisy or phantom announcements. Etobicoke demanded change, and we've delivered.

Last month, I had the pleasure to announce $955,000 in new dollars for front-line health care services, and an expansion of both the LAMP and Stonegate

services across Etobicoke and Mississauga. We are building healthier communities right across Ontario because we are committed to the people of Ontario.

LEADER OF THE PROGRESSIVE

CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I've got a question for the members opposite, to my right -- actually to my far right: Where is Mr Tory?

Where's Waldo? Where is the peekaboo member from west lobby? Because he's not here. He hasn't been in the House for the last three months.

On Monday, he said he'd be here. He said he'd give us hell. Well, where the heck is he? As far as I can tell, he has only shown up here once this week, and you

know why he showed up? Just so he could say, "Well, nothing's changed. I'm still not running for a seat, and I still won't be around."

When the peekaboo member from west lobby won the leadership, Ernie Eves said, "We'll see what the leader wants me to do. I've always done what the leader has

asked me to do." But today John Tory said that he in fact has no control over Ernie Eves and when he leaves.

No control -- exactly, Mr Speaker. The peekaboo member from west lobby has no control over his own agenda, no control over his own caucus and no control over

any hope of ever getting a seat in this Legislature. While it only took Ernie Eves 12 days to find a seat, it appears that the peekaboo member from west lobby has hardly started to look. I'd like

to remind him that Mr Eves's seat is usually empty, and it's getting cold because, Lord knows, Ernie hasn't been keeping it warm.

John Tory, you said today that you'd be here by March 29 -- of no particular year. We eagerly look forward to whichever year that is.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): This has been a tremendous session for this government. As we go back to our ridings now to enjoy the

Christmas break, we're finding that time and time again, when we speak to people, they tell us that, yes, we've had to make some tough decisions and we did make those tough decisions.

Now we're moving on to make improvements in health care, as was announced just this week. People are going to notice a difference now when they are waiting in

line for these procedures. People are going to notice a difference when they are looking for cataract surgery. People are going to notice a difference when they are waiting in line for cancer

treatment. People are going to notice a difference when they are waiting in line for cardiac treatment, for MRIs and joint replacements.

People are noticing a difference already in their schools, where they're seeing their classes get smaller, where they're seeing the commitments that we made

time after time coming forward to fruition. They're seeing their schools being fixed up. The leaky roofs and all the problems we've seen in the schools before are being improved.

A difference is being made in this province; there's no question about it. I'm proud of this last little session of Parliament we've had here. I think all of

us on this side of the House are proud. We've turned the corner in Ontario. We've got great things to come for next year: 2005 will be a spectacular year here in Ontario. These changes are going to

continue.

We are delivering a province that is stronger. We are delivering a province where people will be much better off than they were over the last number of

years.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to acknowledge with gratitude

the gift sent to me for Christmas from the member for Durham, Mr O'Toole: a lump of coal. I did want to point out that it's not in fact coal; it's charcoal. More Tory misadvertisement.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That's not a point of order.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to proceed with the order for third reading of Bill 60,

An Act to

amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 2004.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the special report of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner on the disclosure of personal information by the Shared Services Bureau of the Management Board Secretariat and the Ministry of Finance.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORPORATIONS TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'IMPOSITION DES SOCIÉTÉS

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 166, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'imposition des sociétés.

The