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

May 23, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-May-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 23 May 2002 Jeudi 23 mai 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(CONSUMER PROTECTION), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR)

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT (CONSUMER PROTECTION), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ (PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR)

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT (CONSUMER PROTECTION), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ (PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

GO TRANSIT

LABOUR MOBILITY

CURTIS JOSEPH

ONTARIO SECURITY

KITCHENER LAWN BOWLING CLUB

NORTHERN UNIVERSITY FUNDING

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS

VINCE AUDIBERT BOATHOUSE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

RICHARD RUSTON

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

MINISTRY OF THE

ENVIRONMENT STAFF

FEDERAL AIRPORT SECURITY FEES

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

MARRIAGE

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

CHILD CARE

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

SAVINGS OFFICE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

SOCIAL AUDIT

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

HOME CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Thursday 23 May 2002 Jeudi 23 mai 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to prohibit Quebec residents from working in certain mining and forestry occupations in Ontario / Projet de loi 14, Loi interdisant aux

résidents du Québec d'exercer certaines professions minières et forestières en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane. According to standing order 96, you have 10

minutes to debate.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): It saddens me that I have to return to the Ontario Legislature with the very same bill I brought forward

three years ago now to try to address a very chronic problem that not only affects the economy of my riding of Timiskaming-Cochrane but all of northeastern Ontario, and that also spills into some

other parts of northern Ontario.

This government will be well aware that it recognized a similar problem that happened, and is still happening, in the construction industry affecting

southeastern Ontario, particularly the Ottawa-Carleton area, and back in 1995 actually passed Bill 17, the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act, in regard to construction workers.

What my bill attempts to do today is basically parallel the thrust that the Harris government of that day took in regard to construction workers and to make sure

the jurisdiction of this bill would include woodcutters, wood haulers and miners who work in this province from the province of Quebec. What this bill would do -- it appears at first blush to be

quite harsh in its approach -- would be to restrict the ability of Quebec workers to come into Ontario in those three occupations until the Quebec government recognizes that it is a goal of all

Canadians to have free labour mobility right across this country and allows equal access for Ontario workers to work in the province of Quebec. I don't want to be, as a nation builder, establishing

walls between our provinces, and that is not the intent of this bill.

This bill, like the government's previous bill, is basically a warning shot to the province of Quebec to say that we can no longer tolerate uneven treatment of

labour mobility across this province and that all Canadians must have access to jobs right across this country, regardless of what province they live in. That's the intent of this bill. The bill

spells out some penalties that would accrue to workers and companies if Quebec workers in these three occupations were hired. It also gives flexibility to the government through the Lieutenant

Governor in Council to, by regulation, set aside different aspects of this bill once it becomes apparent that the Quebec government no longer restricts access to Ontarians working in the province

of Quebec in these trades. It tries to complement what the government has previously done in regard to construction but applies it in three very important occupations that are a big part of the

economy of northeastern Ontario.

It saddens me that I have to do this again because, since I last brought in this bill, our job opportunities continue to diminish in northeastern Ontario. Right

across the north we continue to have tremendous out-migration of workers, particularly our youth. As I think members are aware, about two months ago Statistics Canada brought the stark reality home

that I and others have felt anecdotally at home about how we have lost our population by publishing the population declines of northern Ontario over the last five years. They were quite shocking.

One of the worst examples is in the community of Kirkland Lake, the largest municipality in my riding, which over the last five years has seen a population decline of 14%.

When I was first elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1985, Kirkland Lake had a population of 14,500. Today the population of Kirkland Lake is 8,600. Kirkland

Lake in its glory days of gold mining in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s had a population of 26,000 at one time. As you know how towns are developed, the infrastructure that supports 26,000 people still

remains in place, making it a very expensive challenge for the town council and the mayor there to maintain the infrastructure of that town. As the population continues to decline, we have to fight

for every job that we can. We have to look at innovation -- and I'm glad the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation is here to hear what is going to be said about this bill in the House

today -- but we also have to protect the jobs that we have already and the jobs that naturally occur in our region. Whether we like it or not, northern Ontario traditionally has been dependent upon

resource-extraction jobs. The prime employers in northeastern Ontario are forestry, mining and agriculture. While we wish we had had the industrial revolution post-World War II that southern

Ontario enjoyed with the development of the steel mills and the automobile industry, because of our penalty of geography, if you will, we never had that opportunity, and so we remain reliant upon

these resource jobs as we try also to move into the new-economy jobs and look at developing call centres and other high-tech opportunities as they may arise.

The jobs we do have we need to protect. More and more over the last five years we have been losing the jobs that should be ours in our industries, based on our

resources, to workers from Quebec. As I've said previously, the province of Quebec has put up roadblocks for Ontarians working on their side of the border in similar jobs.

So it becomes necessary, as the government recognized in construction trades, to put a piece of legislation forward, not only to put that restriction there, but

to send a signal to the province of Quebec that they have to be serious and sit down with our Ministry of Labour and negotiate a free mobility package between our two provinces.

I know northern New Brunswick, which shares a border with Quebec, also suffers much the same effects of this that we do in northeastern Ontario. They have a very

similar problem there. To be fair to all Canadians, all Canadians must have free access into all provinces for job and labour mobility.

To give you a specific example, Noranda Mines owns mines, of course, in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, but they also have mines in Timmins and one just north of Kirkland

Lake. The Kirkland Lake and Rouyn mines are about 100 kilometres apart. In Rouyn, it would be hard to find an Ontario miner working in that operation. In the Noranda mine in the Harker-Holloway

area north of Kirkland Lake, over 50% of the workers are from Quebec. They commute on Highway 101 from Duparquette and Rouyn-Noranda and basically steal our jobs. That is a Quebec-based company

that basically operates in Ontario and in Quebec, 100 kilometres apart. In the Quebec operation, there are no Ontario workers. In the Ontario operation, from time to time there are over 50% Quebec

workers. Those jobs should be ours. If we can't have access to jobs in Quebec, then Quebecers shouldn't have access to our jobs here.

It is very similar in the forest industry. The two main jobs in forestry are woodcutters and wood haulers. Our wood is hauled out of the bush to our mills. So

log hauling happens there. Once the logs are cut into lumber, that lumber is trucked into the United States. Domtar is an owner of a mill at Elk Lake -- it's a part ownership; they're two-thirds

owners. Domtar is a Quebec-based company. Recently, they changed their trucking contract to a Quebec-based firm. Twenty-six truck drivers in the New Liskeard area, working for Grant Transport, lost

their jobs to this Quebec company.

So part of this is not only restrictions being placed upon worker mobility by the government of Quebec; it's also part of the culture of Quebec-based companies

that work in Ontario and insist on hiring subcontractors based in Quebec. This robs us of these job opportunities too. Part of this is also a cultural change that has to happen. This situation is

getting worse as more and more Quebec-based companies are taking over Ontario resource jobs. So there are two issues here that need to be addressed.

I'm pleased to stand in my place today to bring this to the attention of the House. As the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation, who is in the

House today, would know, Ontario is a fast-growing province. But northern Ontario doesn't share in that economic growth. In fact, our economy is in decline, as reflected in our population

statistics.

I think Ontario will not prosper unless all regions of the province share in that growth. That is my personal goal, that northern Ontario share somewhat in the

total growth of this province. We need to make sure that all regions of Ontario share in the prosperity this province is developing, so that all Ontarians have an equal opportunity to raise a

family, to be able to afford post-secondary education for their children and to have a good life in this province. This is not the case in northern Ontario. We are in rapid decline. I ask this

House for support for this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I rise today to state why the Legislature and the government have difficulty supporting the passage of Bill

14. I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and the member for Cambridge, esteemed colleagues all.

I want to begin by stating emphatically that the government is committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade and labour mobility barriers. As a result of

some of the problems that have been encountered -- and with due respect to the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane, we fully understand the frustration, I think, that he and his local community have

with their circumstances -- in 1999 we introduced and passed the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act. This had to do with construction labour mobility, and the legislation had all-party support in

this House.

This legislation came after decades of frustration with Quebec's restrictions and barriers in the construction industry, which prevented Ontario construction

workers and contractors from working freely in that province. We consulted broadly with workers and contractors in the construction industry in eastern Ontario to determine what would work to level

the playing field between the two provinces in that sector. The Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act came as a result of those consultations. Our government's legislation mirrored Quebec's restrictions

on Ontario residents. Now, Quebec workers and contractors who want to work on construction projects in Ontario face similar restrictions to those that Ontario residents face in Quebec.

We did not do this as a quick reaction to Quebec's system. For decades, Ontario negotiated, and we did our level best to try to level the playing field. Only

when this did not work did the House pass the legislation, and in May 1999 we designated Quebec under the act. For a while it seemed to work. Quebec came back to the negotiating table, in fact with

serious proposals. By November 1999, special negotiators from both provinces came to an agreement to implement new measures of access. We agreed to monitor this access for one year, which was

subsequently extended to an additional year, ending November 2001.

Last December we returned again to negotiations with two outstanding issues: first, Ontario contactors were still unable to bid on any construction contracts

tendered by Quebec crown corporations, and secondly, Quebec continued to refuse to recognize experienced but uncertified workers who are part of an Ontario contractor's workforce. These workers

were able to work in the Hull sub-region only. We ran into a brick wall, simply speaking. Quebec would not move. We had no choice but to redesignate Quebec under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street

Act. This designation is now in place and will continue as long as Quebec has in place restrictive barriers against Ontario workers and contractors.

I want to point out that we are merely mirroring Quebec's restrictions. There is no outright ban on Quebec workers. But Bill 14, the bill we are debating today,

in fact does the opposite. This bill bluntly proposes to restrict residents of Quebec from working in the mining and forestry industries in Ontario. To that extent, I would be very interested to

see how the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell votes, because I know he is a strong proponent of fairness and certainly a strong proponent of the people of Quebec.

This bill does not attempt to mirror any restrictions that Ontario workers find in Quebec. It simply prohibits Quebec residents from working in Ontario, period,

end of story. It does not try to level the playing field between Ontario and Quebec. Instead, it puts a blanket restriction on workers in that industry from working in Ontario at all.

Our government is committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade and labour mobility barriers. We remain committed to the protection of Ontario workers

and the preservation of jobs. We support open and fair labour mobility in all sectors. However, we have strong concerns about Bill 14.

Unlike the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act, Bill 14 does not attempt to eliminate barriers between the two provinces. It actually enhances those barriers and

makes them greater. It does not mirror the restrictions that Quebec puts on Ontario workers in forestry and mining; it creates new barriers by banning Quebec workers entirely from working in

Ontario, and will not achieve fairness in labour mobility and will not level the playing field.

Therefore, while we understand the frustration the member for Timiskaming has with his local economic situation, it is difficult for us to support his bill in

this way.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): C'est avec plaisir que je me joins à mon collègue le député de

Timiskaming-Cochrane et que je l'appuie dans les démarches qu'il a entreprises en déposant le projet de loi.

Le Canada est composé de 10 provinces et de trois territoires. Nous savons que le Québec se distingue beaucoup du reste du Canada dans plusieurs

domaines, par exemple, l'entente canadienne sur la santé, dont le Québec fait province à part des autres. Jamais n'ont-ils voulu signer l'entente canadienne, entente signée par

tous les autres provinces et territoires.

Today it is again a very important issue. I am sad to say that once again we will be talking about this issue in this House. Whether it be in the mining and

forestry industry in northern Ontario or about the construction industry all along the Quebec-Ontario border, from Cornwall to Hawkesbury, from Rockland to Arnprior, from Arnprior to Pembroke, from

Pembroke to Mattawa, from Mattawa to New Liskeard to Cochrane, the list goes on and on.

Not too long ago, I had a meeting with a group of people from Kapuskasking and Hearst. They were telling me how unfair it is up there in the forestry industry.

Loggers from Ontario could not have access to the Quebec side, but Quebec transportation people were able to come in and pick up logs and deliver them to Quebec paper mills. They were telling me

that Ontario truckers had to take the logs and dump them at the border so that Quebec truckers could pick them up, but the opposite doesn't work. They come here and pick up our wood with no

limitation, with no restriction.

I was talking to a logger just last night, Gilles Mainville, from the Vankleek Hill-Alfred area. He was telling me how unfair it is at the present time in

forestry with the Quebec government. Our MNR people had the Larose forest for many years. We were opening contracts, we were asking for submissions for tendering, and all that time Quebec

contractors were getting the contracts. Why? It's because, having only a 30-minute drive to go to any of the paper mills in Masson or Thurso, we're getting $2.80 less per tonne than Quebec

contractors were able to get to take the wood to the mill. So we were overbid all the time, because it's the highest bidder who gets the contract from the MNR. Our people could not compete with

those Quebec people because it was already unfair when we were delivering the wood to the mills in Thurso or Masson. This is one example.

Again, to go back to the North Bay area, the former Premier's riding, Miller Paving was telling me that there was no way they could compete with the Quebec

contractors because they were not adding on the taxes. We know when it is a contract that the provincial tax is not to be added to the bottom line but has to be incorporated in the tendering. But

at no time was the tax added to a contract. We were losing millions and millions of dollars; I said at one time that we were losing as much as $300 million a year.

I'm going to give you a good example of this unfairness that is going on. On March 9 the former Minister of Labour said, "No Quebec contractors will be allowed

to bid on any publicly funded contract." Monsieur Rochon, the Minister of Labour of Quebec, made a statement at a press conference in Hull during that period of time that was on the radio and in

the newspapers. He said, "At no time will we ever accept that Ontario contractors bid on a contract in Montreal" -- at no time. This is to show you the unfairness that is going on with the Quebec

government at the present time.

Black Electric, from Ottawa, was the lowest bidder on the Place du Portage contract in Hull. DPW had an estimate of $302,000 for a contract. Black Electric has a

master licence to work as a contractor in Quebec, but their home office is in Ottawa. Beaudoin Electrical from Quebec had a submission of $469,000, I believe. Black Electric's was $292,000. Black

Electric did not get the contract because they had an Ontario address. It just shows you how unfair it is at the present time.

I was looking at another issue. Quebec Hydro had to do some work on the Ontario side to stabilize the shore of the river. They opened up the tenders but only

Quebec companies were allowed to bid on the contract, even though we had Bertrand Construction from Ontario which specializes in this. They have a gravel pit, they have everything, but their

address was in Ontario. It was to work in Ontario, but the contract was given by Hydro-Québec. We could not even do the job on the Ontario side because it was a Hydro-Québec contract. It

just shows you again the unfairness we Ontarians are facing with the Quebec government every time. It's too bad that at the present time those Quebec construction workers who work in Ontario are

not even allowed to work in Quebec. They have to come and work in Ontario.

At this time of year last year, I did stop a contract in eastern Ontario by a paving company called Bon Asphalte from Saint-Léonard. I told everyone who

signed the contract at the time, "Are there any taxes added to it?" They said no. "Who have you made your cheque to?" They made it to cash. I said further, "Are you aware that when you give a

contract to a Quebec contractor that is not registered with WSIB, the owner of the property becomes fully responsible if there is an accident on the property?"

My time is up, but I wish I was able to speak for another 20 or 30 minutes on that issue, because I'm fully aware and I think the members of the government

across the aisle are fully aware of what this government has done to Ontario construction workers.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to Bill 14,

An Act to prohibit Quebec

residents from working in certain mining and forestry occupations in Ontario.

The member is really playing local politics here, because that's all it is about: local politics. That's what politics is about. I'll say that since he wants to

play local politics, I'll look at the big picture.

When you look at Bill 14 in contrast to what we're trying to accomplish in this country, which is mobility rights for anyone who is a resident of this country to

move across any province to work, I think that's the admirable objective we're trying to accomplish. Quite frankly, I don't know how this bill is not in conflict with the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms with respect to economic mobility across the country.

Aside from that, when you look at what is trying to be accomplished here, you have to look at it from the point of view of, what would Quebec do in retaliation

with respect to this bill in terms of workers from Ontario who may already be working in the province of Quebec? Did the member think that through when he put this piece of legislation together?

Certainly there are people who come from other provinces, not just from Ontario, who would work in Quebec. I can't believe it's just that one-sided. I know there are issues with respect to the

mining and forestry industries, but when you look at the types of occupations we're dealing with here, mining and forestry are highly skilled occupations. When you say, "We can't bring in these

people who are already working here, in terms of these particular professions in the mining and the forestry industry," where are you going to find these highly skilled workers to work in our

province? Quite frankly, that's what this country is about in terms of bringing in workers to do the work that's necessary for this country where we have openings. That's part of what makes this

country great. But to target one province -- certainly we have to work with them if there is a problem in terms of restrictions. I think that's what this government was trying to do when it

introduced the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), 1999. It was in response to barriers that Ontario construction workers and contractors find while trying to work in

Quebec.

Obviously, there is a problem that is identified by the member. We have to recognize that in terms of what he feels in the forestry and mining industries. That's

something that obviously should be dealt with as we move from one province to the next. We also are neighboured by the province of Manitoba, so is the province of Manitoba to be the next on the

list with respect to this particular type of legislation? I don't know why they would be.

What we have to accomplish here is having governments work together. We have to accomplish economic mobility. Certainly there are issues that every province

faces, not only with respect to commerce but with respect to other issues that have to work. But to come out and basically say -- and when you look at the

preamble of the bill, I think it says it

all. It says, "The province of Quebec continues to restrict the right of Ontario residents to work in certain occupations in the mining and forestry industries in Quebec. It is necessary for

Ontario to impose similar restrictions until the province of Quebec removes its restrictions." The restrictions are that if you're a Quebec resident, you can't work in Ontario. I don't know what

the problems are; the member hasn't really fleshed those out in terms of what Ontario workers are having problems with in the province of Quebec. He's not fleshing that out. He's basically saying,

"Let's unilaterally impose a ban on people who are from Quebec." I don't know how blatant you can be with respect to trying to deal with an issue in terms of a person's residency. I think we're

above that in this country; but obviously we're not when you want to play local politics, because that's what this is about.

Those are my comments with respect to this legislation. I won't support it. I don't know who's on his hit list next; maybe the province of Manitoba. But frankly,

this is not what this country is about or what this government is about.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend the member for Timiskaming, Mr Ramsay, for bringing this issue forward, obviously to

protect the interests of his constituents. Look, what all of us would like to see happen in any provincial trade circumstance is that there's free trade. What is ironic is that there has been

signed a free trade agreement with the United States, and subsequent to that a North American free trade agreement involving the United States, Mexico and Canada. Yet some of the greatest

restrictions that we face in terms of trade are interprovincial restrictions.

It seems to me that certainly the member for Prescott-Russell, the member for Timiskaming and other members of the House have made the case that what is fair for

one province is fair for the other. I don't think we would see this bill -- I know we wouldn't see this bill -- before the House if indeed the Quebec government were dealing on a level playing

field. If it were being fair to Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, then there would not be a problem. I don't think the member wants to get into yet another aspect of an interprovincial

trade war, but he recognizes that the only way you're going to get action from the adjacent government, the present government of Quebec, is to bring forward a bill of this kind in the Legislature

that invokes some penalties until such time as the restrictions are removed by the Quebec government on Ontario workers and Ontario businesses.

It's very frustrating if you listen to the members who represent ridings adjacent to the Quebec border, but I've even had calls from people who have called my

constituency office who want to do some business in Quebec and said, "I thought the provincial government passed a bill some time ago which would allow me access into the Quebec market, yet I find

this is not the case. They are allowed to operate in Ontario; we're not allowed to operate in Quebec."

So I commend the member for bringing forward this bill. I am totally surprised by the reaction of some of the government members to this. Back when it was

fashionable to bash Quebec, they were large as life doing so. Before they brought in their legislation, there were all kinds of questions, trumped-up questions, on the government side about this.

Now, when they're asked to follow the leadership of the member for Timiskaming -- and there's another part to the riding as well --

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Cochrane.

Mr Bradley: -- Timiskaming-Cochrane, they don't seem to want to follow it. I support his bill, and I hope other members in the House will as

well.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): First, let me make it quite clear that I will not be supporting this legislation. Let me explain why, because

I want to make it quite clear that I doubt very much if I stand with Conservative members in their opposition to the legislation.

Look, I understand the bill's author's interests in presenting this bill to the Legislature. I wish it had been in the form of, let's say, a resolution, which

would have perhaps permitted more members to be more sympathetic to it. I wish as well that it had distinguished between individuals as workers and operators, businesses, individuals operating as

businesses or as contractors, because you'll note that quite specifically in

section 2 it speaks to "no person," and of course it incorporates that broad definition of "person," including corporate

body. "No person" -- which includes any working woman or man -- "shall work in Ontario as a miner" or a woodcutter. Similarly, it says, "No person" -- which means an employer, corporate employer or

otherwise -- "shall employ ... a person resident in Quebec to work in Ontario as a miner" or as a woodcutter.

Now, the problem is that it imposes penalties for either the worker pursuing work -- again, understanding the concerns that the member and some of his residents

may have about Quebecers taking their jobs, I find that a regrettable perspective. What this tells people, tells working people -- when we're talking about individuals working as miners or as

woodcutters, we're not talking about big multinational corporate entities; we're talking about working women and men, just like our working women and men, who are doing their best to support

themselves and their families in the situations that best enable them to do it.

Now, the problem is that, were this bill to pass, and were a prosecution to be initiated, the most inept first-year law student would have this turfed out of a

court within five minutes. This province's Attorney General, notwithstanding his lacklustre reputation in our courts, would have no trouble defending the prosecution under this legislation,

because, you see, the Supreme Court of Canada has already decided the issue. I regret to advise the author of the bill that the issue is moot now.

You see, back in 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled specifically on the application of

section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's not

new law; it's old law. It has been around for a significant period of time. The court couldn't have been more clear. The court couldn't have been more specific about what

section 6 of the charter

means, because there were some who would have argued, as was undoubtedly argued prior to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1989, that paragraphs (

a) and (

b) of subsection 6(2) of the charter

are to be interpreted conjunctively; I think that's the word lawyers use.

Look, understand what

section 6 of the charter says with respect to mobility rights, and in particular subsection (2), which is what's relevant here:

"Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident has the right

"(

a) to move and take up residence in any province; and

"(

b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province."

The words are pretty unequivocal. I suppose at the end of the day you either believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or you don't. There are learned

arguments that continue against the adoption of a Charter of Rights. Among others is the fact that the Charter of Rights constrains or restricts the ability of a Legislature, be it a provincial

Legislature or the federal Parliament, to enact laws. That's exactly the point. It's supposed to. That's why most Canadians -- I among them -- endorse and embrace and applaud the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. It quite clearly says to legislators that there are certain things you simply cannot legislate.

Regrettably there's a non obstante clause, and I'm not suspecting that the author of the bill proposes utilization of that in the act, although I'm concerned

about how the enactment of a non obstante clause when you're dealing with interprovincial rights, specifically with

section 6, would be responded to as compared to rights within the jurisdiction

alone. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Let me tell you what happened in 1989 in the Supreme Court of Canada. It's the decision of Black v. the Law Society of Alberta. The Supreme Court effectively

said that

section 6, the mobility rights provision of the charter, "extends to citizens and permanent residents alike" -- we understand that from reading the first part of subsection (2) -- "the

right to reside wherever one wishes in the country and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood without regard for provincial boundaries. Like other individual rights guaranteed by the charter, it

must be interpreted generously...." The Supreme Court of Canada made very clear that the

interpretation has to be a generous one, because undoubtedly the argument had been made -- it was that

restrictive argument, the conjunctive consideration of paragraphs (

a) and (b). It must be interpreted generously "to achieve its purpose: to provide the right of citizens or permanent residents to

move about the country, to reside where they wish and to pursue their livelihood," to work as miners, woodcutters, lawyers, waitresses, steelworkers, farm workers, what have you.

"While the provinces may regulate these rights" -- which is the case, for instance, of lawyers; in other words, you can't practise law in another province unless

you comply with the standards of that province -- "they may not do so, subject to the exceptions in this

section and sections 1, in terms of provincial boundaries." I don't believe the author of

the bill is suggesting that

section 1 provides an opening or an opportunity.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): You can ask him right now.

Mr Kormos: Maybe Mr Sampson will have the presence of mind to rise in this debate and participate, and he can put the question to the author

of the bill.

Mr Sampson: You're standing already. Why don't you ask him?

Mr Kormos: See the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr Sampson. I want to share this with you. I want you to understand it as well as

you're capable of understanding it.

Mr Sampson: I'll do my best.

Mr Kormos: Mr Sampson is doing his best.

Mr Sampson: I'll try to exceed your level, Peter, and it won't be that much of a challenge.

Mr Kormos: "Section 6(2)(

b) guarantees not simply the right to pursue a livelihood, but the right to pursue the livelihood of choice to the

extent and subject to the same conditions as residents," to wit, residents of that province.

"The right to pursue the livelihood of choice must remain a viable right and cannot be rendered practically ineffective and illusory by provincial regulation.

The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in the province does not" -- this is critical -- "depend on physical movement of the individual to the province. A person can pursue a living in a

province without being there personally." And the single most important observation about that judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada is that, "This section" --

section 6 of the charter on

mobility rights -- "guarantees the right to offer one's services anywhere in Canada regardless of one's place of residence."

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Including Quebec? Why doesn't it apply to Quebec?

Mr Kormos: The end of the story.

Mr Colle: How do they get away with it?

Mr Kormos: Mr Colle asks why it doesn't apply to Quebec. Look, I'm talking about our responsibilities as a Legislature, and I'm talking about

the distinction between provincial regulations governing certain standards and the need to harmonize those regulations. I have no quarrel with that. Again, that issue was addressed around the area

of construction trades and building trades. But unfortunately, you can't tell individuals that they have to live in the province in which they're working. You can tell them that they have to comply

with the standards of that province if they're doing something that's regulated, but you can't tell them that they have to live here.

I don't quarrel with the author of the bill's observation that more Quebecers work in Ontario up in the northeast than Ontarians work in Quebec, although I am

advised that there are Ontarians who work in Quebec. There's no suggestion that there are no Ontarians working in Quebec. So I put to him, with this bill, is he not contrary to the charter? I hope

he's not inviting some sort of retaliation on the part of Quebec to, for instance, similarly forbid those Ontarians who work in Quebec. I am told when I talk to people from the Ottawa-Hull area

that there are a whole lot of people who live in Hull, Quebec, who work in Ottawa, but I'm also told that there are a whole lot of people in Ottawa who work in Hull.

Interjections: They work for the feds.

Mr Kormos: I'm told there are a whole lot of people who live in Ottawa who work in Hull. We've got to live with that. So I'm not going to be

supporting the bill.

The other observation that has to be made is that we shouldn't be in the business of pitting worker against worker. Workers' enemies aren't workers from other

provinces. Workers' enemies are this government that has created an anti-union agenda. Workers' enemies are this government that has refused to raise the minimum wage. Workers' enemies are

multinational corporations that participate in the drive toward lower and lower wages. Workers' enemies are those who would undermine the role of trade unions and undermine the right of workers to

organize themselves into trade unions and freely, collectively bargain. Workers' enemies are governments that permit scabs to take their jobs, not other workers. Workers' enemies are pro-scab

governments like the Harris and Eves government here at Queen's Park. I'm not interested in participating in an exercise that pits worker against worker.

Workers have achieved every right that they've struggled for by standing together in solidarity, whether it be multi-provincially or whether it be

internationally. I quite frankly want to encourage this Legislature to support the need for workers to be in solidarity with each other. I want to encourage this Legislature to join in the

fight against the corporate exploitation of workers, against a government that would undermine occupational health and safety legislation. Workers are being killed, maimed, diseased, slaughtered on

a daily basis in this province as a result of this government's abandonment of workers' interests and right to have some control over safety in the workplace, by the Harris-Eves government's

abandonment of workplace inspection, and permitting Ministry of Labour officials, the few that are left, to inspect unsafe work conditions and right to refuse unsafe work by virtue of mere phone

calls, inevitably to bosses.

So our exercise shouldn't be to pit worker against worker. Our exercise shouldn't be to deprive workers of their right to earn a living in an already difficult

context. Our exercise should be to attack governments like this government for its anti-worker agenda. Our exercise should be to encourage workers to join and participate in their trade unions and

to work together in solidarity, be it from one province to the other or from one country to another, to achieve the justice that workers have achieved over the course of generations and decades of

struggle.

We will not be supporting this legislation. We understand the motivation for it. It's contrary to the charter, and at the end of the day, it's not really in

workers' interests.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I know the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane has good intentions in introducing Bill 14. His heart is certainly

in the right place. He shares with me a long-time concern that Quebec takes unfair advantage in its relationship with Ontario and, for that matter, other provinces in Canada. I am pleased to see

him breaking with the slavish devotion that his leader, Mr McGuinty, shows toward the federal Liberals in this regard.

However, I do consider Mr Ramsay's bill radical and draconian. It seems to me he's trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer. It reminds me of the United

States's mindless approach to protectionism, personified by their new agriculture and lumber policies. This bill also may result in unintended consequences that have not been considered.

First, I suggest that industry does not support the proposed legislation; that includes both businesses and workers. Ontario's mining industry historically has

relied on open labour mobility, both nationally and internationally, to remain competitive. There are many skilled jobs that require specialized knowledge which may be found in workers outside of

Ontario. With this legislation, if a specific skilled worker happens to reside in Quebec, he or she would not be able to work for an Ontario mine even though that skill may not be available

here.

As well, some Ontario mining companies currently operate both in Ontario and Quebec. These companies often rely on shifting workers between operations and

regions for practical and competitive reasons. Bill 14 would punish these companies, preventing them from conducting their operations in a way they have for years, and would challenge their ability

to compete in the international market.

The forestry industry also relies on similar open mobility between Ontario and Quebec. Why, I ask members of this House, would the Ontario Legislature clamp

down on these industries and prevent them from conducting their business in the way they now do? This will not help Ontario's competitiveness and certainly will not preserve jobs for hard-working

Ontarians. Instead, it may indeed cause jobs to be lost, jobs of Ontario workers working in Quebec.

Consider how Quebec may react to this legislation. Bill 14 could cause a massive retaliation. Quebec could prohibit Ontario workers from working in those

industries in Quebec, hurting Ontario families. As a result of Bill 14, trade and mobility between our provinces would suffer. This would lead to an unstable situation, tipping the playing field

first one way and then the other.

The Ernie Eves government supports fairness and the protection of Ontario workers and their jobs. This bill does not solve the problem; it only creates new

ones. For this reason, I cannot support Bill 14.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The chair recognizes the member for Prince Edward-Hastings.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill that my colleague from Timiskaming-Cochrane has brought to the

floor of the Legislature this morning. I certainly admire his courage in presenting an issue to protect the people of Ontario.

I've listened very carefully to the debate here this morning and the lectures about what our role and responsibility here is, our responsibilities as

legislators. I would suggest to you that we have a responsibility to be advocates for the people of Ontario. What my colleague Mr Ramsay is trying to bring to the floor is the fact that there are

people in Ontario who are not being treated fairly and something has to be done about it. This is a very important issue within the labour sector in Ontario. This is one part of the labour sector.

We've heard the former Minister of Labour, now the new Minister of Environment and Energy, speak to the issue of the government's Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act, which refers only to MUSH sector

jobs, contract jobs.

I have another labour issue in my own riding that is somewhat related to this where there is a cement plant, Lafarge Canada, and there's a strike there. The

tradespeople in that situation have been on strike since December 13, 2001, out of work, walking the line. What the company has done is import scabs from the province of Quebec. These good men and

women who have built the company and brought it the success it has enjoyed most recently are now victimized and the collective bargaining process, in my opinion, has been hijacked. We have a

responsibility as legislators to advocate, to stand up and say, "This is wrong," because those same tradespeople who are walking a line in Ontario today could not walk across the border to the

province of Quebec and gain employment there in a similar situation.

Mr Colle: It's a double standard.

Mrs Dombrowsky: There is a double standard here. My colleague has recognized in his community another example where there are labour issues

where people in our province have no advantage; where people from another province do have an advantage; where our workers, our trained people, can't gain employment across the border but their

trained people can gain employment in Ontario. The member of the government has suggested that this type of legislation could cost jobs within our community. I think my colleague from

Timiskaming-Cochrane had demonstrated, when you talk about the population of the community of Kirkland Lake, that that has cost thousands of jobs if you consider the numbers by which the population

has declined in his community.

Again, I admire and support this legislation. I admire my colleague because he has chosen a very radical way to advocate for workers in Ontario, and I'm very

prepared to support any kind of initiative that advocates and puts Ontario people on the same playing field as everyone else in Canada.

The Acting Speaker: My apologies; the only thing I had right about your riding was the "Hastings" and I did not include the proper part of

"Frontenac-Lennox and Addington."

The member for Timiskaming-Cochrane has two minutes to reply.

Mr Ramsay: I appreciate all the members who participated in the debate today. I'd like to point out that the last time this bill was debated

in the House was on November 2, 2000, and at that time it did pass second reading. We'll have to see how the vote goes at noon hour today. In fact, I was just looking at some of the past speeches,

and at that time the member from Welland-Thorold waxed eloquent in support of the bill. Of course, the only thing that has changed on this bill is the date, to bring it up to date.

I'd just like to say to the members of the House that in my heart this is not the type of action I would really like to take. But as has been expressed by

other members of the House and myself, what I'm looking for is a fair, level playing field so that workers in northwestern Quebec and northeastern Ontario could work together, could work in either

province in similar jobs and compete for those jobs as individuals without having the Quebec government basically tilt the playing field in the favour of Quebec workers. The member for Cambridge

had said that this was maybe using a sledgehammer to defeat a mosquito. He would have to live in my area to understand that the hundreds and hundreds of Quebec workers who are displacing our

workers really have had a devastating and profound impact on the economy of northeastern Ontario and, similarly, on all of northern Ontario.

It is time that somebody stood up for the workers of northeastern Ontario. This act does that. It's time somebody stood up to the government of Quebec, which

doesn't want to play by the rules that the member from Welland-Thorold talks about.

I believe in free labour mobility right across this province. What I want to do is propose this bill as a wake-up call to both the Ontario Ministry of Labour

and the province of Quebec to say that workers in this country need fair opportunity to work anywhere in this county, and that Ontario workers should have the right to work in Quebec as Quebec

workers do in Ontario. It's time we stood up for the workers of northeastern Ontario.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(CONSUMER PROTECTION), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR)

Mr Hampton moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to protect consumers / Projet de loi 55, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'électricité afin de

protéger les consommateurs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): According to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes to make a presentation.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This is an amendment to the Electricity Act which I believe the experience on the doorstep out there

tells us all is badly needed. What's happening on the doorsteps across this province is electricity consumers are in some cases being misled; in other cases, electricity consumers are being lied

to. We also have evidence of electricity consumers having their signatures forged on contracts. Also, we have reports of time after time where electricity consumers are subjected to the most

unfair, unprincipled high-pressure sales techniques. I don't think anyone could defend this kind of behaviour.

We're really talking about a fairness issue here: people on their doorsteps being confronted by so-called retail electricity salespersons who are not honest,

who are not providing complete information, in some cases are providing absolutely misleading information and in other cases are just outright lying to people, and finally, in the worst of all

cases, signatures have been forged. We have to do something in this Legislature to protect consumers across the province from this very unfair situation.

What will the act do? The first thing it will do is allow the consumer to avoid an electricity retail sales contract at any time by giving the seller 15 days'

written notice of the fact that the consumer will cease to be bound by the contract. We're essentially saying to all those people out there who have been lied to or manipulated or, in some cases,

deceived by misleading information, "You now have a remedy. You can avoid the contract." I would suggest that this would go a long way toward righting some of the wrongs that have happened to a

number of consumers.

The second thing it would do is that a contract for the sale of electricity that's made between a consumer and a person other than a distributor before the day

the Electricity Amendment Act, 2002, comes into force is of course voidable and new contracts simply would not be allowed.

Why do I think this ought to be the case? Let's look at it. These electricity retailers out there don't generate electricity, they don't transmit electricity,

they don't distribute electricity. They don't do anything meaningful or necessary in the process of bringing electricity from generating stations to people so they can use it in their homes or in

their businesses. All they do is engage in a game of speculation and fear. That's all they do.

Just to give you an example of some of the things that are happening, most people in this province know what they pay on a per-kilowatt-hour basis for

generation, transmission and distribution. They get that information on their bill. These door-to-door sales rip-off artists go to people and they compare the price of generation to that all-in

price without letting someone know that in fact they are comparing apples to oranges. They say to people, "Here's what you're paying now, but we would give you this deal." In fact, because all they

are talking about is the price of generating electricity -- they're not including the price of transmission, they're not including the price of distribution, and they're not including the debt

retirement charge of the bill -- people are being misled.

As it stands now, roughly, across the province most people are paying a generation price in the neighbourhood of 4.3 cents. The independent marketer will say,

"On some days it's been down to 3.8; other days it's been higher than that." But the Ontario Energy Board put out figures that said, "We're looking generally at a price of 4.3." Many of the

consumers who are having these door-to-door rip-off artists on their doorstep in fact have unknowingly signed contracts where they're going to be paying 6 cents -- not the 4.3, but 6; in other

words, literally 50% more than they should be paying. They're not going to discover this until they get their June or July electricity bill, and then they're going to discover, "Holy smokes, am I

ever being taken to the cleaners."

The other thing that is so objectionable about this is the misrepresentation that's happening out there. Right now in my constituency there are people who are

going door to door wearing Ontario Hydro jackets and representing themselves as Ontario Hydro Energy and trying to say to people, "If you sign a contract with us, you'll be dealing with the trade

name Ontario Hydro," which has been around in Ontario, as you know, Speaker, for almost 100 years. It's one of the best trade names in electricity that you could find virtually on the continent. So

people are signing. In fact, when they sign these contracts, they are not signing with an Ontario Hydro entity; they're signing with a private organization which is misrepresenting itself. If they

read the fine print in the contract, they'll discover that they are paying 6 cents a kilowatt hour, not 3.8 or 4.3. In other words, they're paying a much higher price. If they read other fine

print, they'll find that any rebate that might be due to electricity consumers, they have automatically signed over to this rip-off company that is misrepresenting itself.

We cannot allow this to happen. As members of the Legislature, we have to stand up and we have to say, "Look, this is wrong." People deserve full knowledge.

They deserve to know exactly what they're buying. They deserve to be able to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. But none of that is happening.

Why isn't it happening? First of all, because the government has allowed this kind of misrepresentation to happen. The government has allowed these kinds of

door-to-door marketers to get out there and sell on the basis not of true comparisons -- apples to apples or oranges to oranges -- but on the basis of totally invalid and very misleading

information. We as legislators should step in and rectify that situation. People who have signed on the dotted line with these very misleading door-to-door sales representatives have signed

contracts which, if they had had access to all of the knowledge, they never would have signed. They would have said, "Get away from my doorstep. This is a rip-off."

So consumers have been kept in the dark on this issue. The government will say, "Oh, but this is for the Ontario Energy Board to rectify." Well, the Ontario

Energy Board doesn't have an enforcement and investigation arm in the sense that they can send investigators out there and do the kind of door-to-door investigation that needs to take place. They

simply don't have that.

So to fob it off on the Ontario Energy Board is just completely unrealistic. The Ontario Energy Board does not have the capacity to be a consumer protection

agency. It doesn't have the personnel, it doesn't have the expertise, it doesn't have the resources to do that. The government ought to know because in fact in its legislation it created the

Ontario Energy Board in this context and didn't give it the investigation capacity, the enforcement capacity or the resources to send door-to-door investigators out there. So the Ontario Energy

Board is completely unequipped to do this.

We need to do it here in the Legislature. We need to give people the capacity to void contracts that have been signed on the basis of forgery, on the basis of

misleading information, on the basis of high-pressure sales contracts and, moreover, we need to say that electricity retailing, since it doesn't add anything -- it doesn't generate electricity, it

doesn't transmit, it doesn't distribute; it merely engages in a game of speculation and fearmongering -- we should prohibit it.

I want to use the remaining time to say to constituents in my own constituency that these people who are coming to your door wearing Ontario Hydro jackets or

something that identifies them with Ontario Hydro, don't sign their contracts. These people have nothing to do with Ontario Hydro or any entity associated with it.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm really pleased to join in the debate this morning with respect to the member's bill, which

is

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to protect consumers. One of the government's main principles in opening Ontario's electricity market to competition has always been to ensure that

consumers are protected. We introduced competition to fix the problems of the past and to safeguard our future supply of electricity.

In my riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, the source to get your electricity is either Barrie Hydro in the city of Barrie or the Bradford-West Gwillimbury or

Innisfil hydro, which is in the town of Innisfil. Quite frankly, those organizations have been in existence for many years, and the practices that they are involved in are certainly without

compromise. There's nothing to suggest that the existing retailers or utility companies that are out there don't act above board.

The member's concerns are people who have been lied to, where there has been forgery, people not having full knowledge of what is happening with respect to

their choice of electricity, not unlike dealing with the consumer practices that go on with long-distance telephone, also dealing with purchasing your gas, just to name a few.

The government will not compromise the gains that Ontario electricity customers began to see on May 1. We won't allow vulnerable customers and seniors to be

manipulated by unscrupulous retailers, nor will we stand by and watch marketers engage in unfair practices or use false, misleading or deceptive advertising. Our government has moved to protect

electricity consumers by putting in place tough laws for energy retailers which require them to operate fairly and honestly. We have provided the Ontario Energy Board with the tools it needs to

oversee the retailing practices of marketers and deal with those engaging in questionable practices.

For example, as a condition of their Ontario Energy Board licence, all retailers must follow the electricity retailer code of conduct that establishes

guidelines and standards. The code requires retail sales people to carry photo identification when retailing door-to-door, to indicate that they don't represent a distribution utility, to clearly

state the price and other terms and to provide a clearly printed contract. As well, retailers must give a customer ample time to understand an offer without pressure or harassment. No customer is

required to show their electricity bill or any other information to a retailer unless they decide to sign a contract with that retailer. Electricity retailers are subject to the same consumer

protection laws as other sellers in the province under the Consumer Protection Act. Direct sales contracts must include a buyer's right-to-cancel statement in not less than 12-point type, which is

a readable size of printed type. It is much larger than so-called "fine print." If there are problems, the Ontario Energy Board, headed by Floyd Laughren, the former Minister of Finance under the

NDP when they were in government, has the authority to levy financial penalties against a retailer or revoke or suspend its licence.

In fact, the Ontario Energy Board has a zero tolerance for anyone engaging in questionable marketing practices. This was demonstrated on April 25 of this year

when the Ontario Energy Board's director of licensing levied significant fines on two electricity retailers for violations of the code of conduct. Also, on May 17 of this year, the Ontario Energy

Board's director of licensing issued a bulletin to all gas and electricity retailers on enhancing consumer awareness and explaining procedures to deal with fraud and misrepresentation, which is

essentially what the member opposite wants to be dealt with in terms of giving consumers a proper choice with full knowledge, and to deal with misrepresentation.

The energy board maintains a log of public complaints on retailers as well as details on the nature of the complaint. Ontario Energy Board licensing staff

investigate those complaints and work with the companies involved.

The NDP bill that has been tabled today is just not necessary. It seeks to undo the decisions of thousands of Ontario electricity customers who have made a

choice. It is telling people that Howard Hampton is in a better position to watch their wallet than they are.

Thousands of customers have chosen their electricity supplier based on the price and service that best meet their needs. That is the kind of decision all of us

make when we renew our mortgages. That's the type of decision that all of us make when we go out and rent a car or we decide to buy anything from a retailer. There is an obligation obviously on the

consumer to make sure they know what they're getting. But at the same time, there are laws in place under the Consumer Protection Act, and through the Ontario Energy Board when you're dealing with

electricity, to protect the consumer. It is the kind of decision every Ontario electricity customer is capable of making for himself or herself without the help of the NDP or anyone else in this

chamber.

Consumer protection is not about taking away choice; it's about providing choice in a strongly regulated competitive market.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Dalton McGuinty and Ontario Liberals support protection for electricity consumers. We have not been talking

about that just today; we have been talking about that for months and months. In February of this year, Dalton McGuinty introduced a consumer protection plan. In that plan, Ontario Liberals called

on the Ontario Energy Board to cancel contracts signed because of unfair sales pitches. To some extent, there has been an attempt to address that evil in this bill.

Dalton McGuinty called on the Ontario Energy Board to fine and suspend the licences of electricity retailers using unfair practices and to place a moratorium

on all further selling until consumers are given a clear cost of electricity on their electricity bills so that they can make "apples to apples" comparisons when looking at the bills in question.

The moratorium would stay in place until the Ontario Energy Board had provided a standard contract to be used by electricity retailers, eliminating the small print and making matters more

clear.

Some of those principles I believe are embodied in this bill; and I have to guess that, because it's a very short bill. I also have to guess it because it's a

very short bill that's been provided on very short notice. I received a copy of it yesterday afternoon, I guess, when he introduced it in the Legislature. We have not had time to determine whether

or not phrases such as "The consumer is entitled to avoid a contract" in fact are making reference to a previous subsection where he wants to "void" a contract. There's a pretty big difference in

law between "voiding" and "avoiding" -- a "voidable" contract. Needless to say, it's something that we need to be looking at and would need to look at at the committee stage.

Let me say, in principle, Ontario Liberals are going to support any measure that attempts to protect consumers. But at the committee stage we will be, I say to

Mr Hampton, submitting many, many amendments to cover off the many other areas where consumers are being ripped off and to deal with some of the problems in the bill that I want to speak to right

now.

The leader of the third party says that in fact what is going on with respect to selling electricity at the door involves a game of speculation and fear. I

think everybody in this House knows, because they've received constituency calls, that consumers are being ripped off. There's no doubt about it. One guess is that thousands of contracts were

entered into where the consumers didn't really know what they were signing.

There is a process in place, however inadequate, to address that situation. A consumer who has grave concerns can contact the Ontario Energy Board. There's a

problem, because they may find themselves on hold. The lines are busy, more often than not. It's difficult to get through. But there is a process by which a contract could be addressed, if it in

fact was unfair. It could be voided and someone could be fined. We do have a process. It's not good enough. It's not nearly good enough. We need the McGuinty consumer protection plan, at the very

least.

This bill, I fear, may have an intentional, perhaps an inadvertent, effect. I'll let the leader of the third party address this charge. By wiping out the

retail market, would we not be creating even greater electricity volatility in the province of Ontario? Would the leader of the third party, through this bill, either intentionally or inadvertently

end up causing his very own perfect storm that he claims he doesn't want to have in the province of Ontario?

Why? You wipe out the retail part of the market. Number one, the volatility that follows is something we simply could not predict right now. Number two,

there's nothing in this bill that protects the province of Ontario from the enormous exposure, the liabilities, that will follow. About a million contracts have been signed through the retail arm.

About a quarter of the province, a quarter of Ontarians, have engaged in retail contracts. If all those people cancel all their contracts -- and under this bill, they are the ones who decide. "We

cancel the contract; 15 days' notice. I may have known what I was signing, I may like my contract, it may be fair, but Jeez, everybody's cancelling their contracts. Maybe I should too." I don't

think that's responsible.

I think it is irresponsible what this government did in permitting the kind of door-to-door activity that it did and not policing it. But I think that wiping

out the retail arm willy-nilly, dramatically affecting the volatility of our electricity market, exposing the province of Ontario to enormous liabilities, in fact is going to result in a situation

which is worse. So clearly, this bill needs some major changes.

Interjection.

Mr Bryant: I hear some heckles. I don't even think the member understands a thing I'm saying.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): You're the one who doesn't understand what you're talking about.

Mr Bryant: Right now I'm being critical of the bill that you're critical of, so in fact, we're in agreement. But that's probably beyond you

right now.

Before I share my time with the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, let me say in closing that what this government has done is engaged in a billion-dollar

botch-up of electricity reform, electricity reform that in 1997 all three parties agreed was necessary. We didn't agree on exactly how it would take place, but we knew that it had to.

In that first stage of electricity reform, people got to sign contracts. It was the government's job to look after the public interest, to look after those

people. That didn't happen. Yet it is that same body and that same government that is supposed to be policing our electricity market. We do not have great confidence right now. When you throw into

the mix the botched-up, illegal attempted sale of Hydro One, you have an enormously unstable market, not one in which we are going to get people to come into Ontario, make made-in-Ontario power for

Ontarians, to end the situation where we are a net importer of electricity.

The government's billion-dollar botch-up must be fixed. I'm not sure if this is the way we're going to fix it, but I will support in principle a bill that

attempts to help consumers in Ontario.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I will probably be sharing the remainder of my time with Mr Gilchrist from Scarborough.

To start on the positive side, I just want to put on the record, with respect to the leader of the New Democratic Party, that I really respect the fact that he

has been a champion in the whole debate of this right from the very beginning. Whether or not he was right, at least I knew where he was coming from.

This bill was obviously put together hastily. It's very small, one page. For the TV here, I could read the

preamble to you. It really doesn't solve very much.

In fact, the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford -- the beautiful member -- actually said it all: it's really quite unnecessary. But it is a statement in time, and I understand the purpose and the

politics of it all. He's trying to further state his strong advocacy for keeping the old Ontario Hydro as it is. Our side here is that it's clear from the Macdonald commission and every other

independent -- including the power workers -- that the current model doesn't work. Primarily, he's saying a couple of things with respect to the right to sell.

Again, the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, a very respected and highly trained lawyer, which I'm not, which is probably a positive for me, is sort of

saying that, "No person other than a distributor shall sell or offer to sell electricity to a consumer." In my case, what has happened is that in my riding of Durham there's Scugog, Oshawa and

Clarington. Oshawa has a very successful local utility company, and the sole owner of that is of course the city of Oshawa -- the Municipal Electric Association, now replaced by the Ontario Energy

Association; that's their name. The remainder -- Ajax, Pickering and Clarington -- formed a conglomerate, if you will, of three previous local municipal electrical associations under the name of

Veridian. Veridian is the first one to form a private company which was under the original restructuring bill by the government and is very successful. The principal shareholders are of course the

municipal levels. They have a retail arm agreement with Mississauga Hydro -- I forget the name; it's Hydro Energy or whatever it's called. They do the retailing, the actual selling to the

consumers.

I don't think it's correct to suggest in this bill that they're the wrong people to do that. But I do agree that it's important to correct on the record that

we want to protect consumers. I refer right back to the base record here, our throne speech, seizing tomorrow's opportunities, or whatever it was called. It has four important objectives:

"First, it will ensure an efficient supply of energy that is competitive for the people of Ontario and in the international marketplace." We have to realize

that this is the reality.

"Second, it will ensure that the necessary capital is provided to rebuild and modernize the transmission and distribution of power in Ontario."

The third commitment by Premier Ernie Eves: "It will bring market discipline to Hydro One," something that clearly isn't there, "the province's transmission

company -- and prevent any possibility of the recurrence of staggering debts, such as the ... $38-billion debt, while eliminating it.

"And fourth" -- this is very important -- "it will achieve these goals while protecting consumers."

It goes on to say, "Your government believes the people of Ontario should have a voice in the future direction of one of Ontario's most important resources." I

couldn't agree more. "Your government has the courage to listen, the willingness to consult and the ability to take the right course of action in the interest of all Ontarians."

There it is in writing. It's a complete commitment that really makes redundant Mr Hampton's small, rather timely private member's bill.

I say in conclusion, though, that the real issue here on the unscrupulous activities that I've heard about and the Ontario Energy Board under the "capable

leadership" of Floyd Laughren, the previous New Democratic Party Treasurer of Ontario, who ran up $11 billion in debt -- a capable person. But he is running that now and he basically, I think, is a

good, honest spokesperson. I believe we should strengthen the role and powers of the Ontario Energy Board to penalize these unscrupulous practices, and that's the message I hear from our Minister

of Environment and Energy, Mr Stockwell, as well as our Premier. I'm confident that this bill, although it speaks to an important issue, is completely unnecessary and probably I will not be

supporting it. I do want to save some time for the member from Scarborough East. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I want to rise to address the bill before the House standing in the name of the member from

Kenora. Let me say, as someone who sat in a committee four years ago when the Legislature was dealing with the whole issue of change in the electricity policy -- and the member for Durham, who just

spoke, was there, I think, for this testimony -- I remember distinctly several witnesses, but most importantly the representatives from the Consumers' Association, telling that legislative

committee dealing with the then Bill 35,

an act to change electricity policy in Ontario, "If you as a government and Legislature are going to proceed with what is known as retail competition, you

must do two things. First and foremost, you must educate in a significant, ongoing way the broad base of retail customers, who will not understand this very difficult and in some cases impenetrable

new world without the help of good, user-friendly public information." And we were told, particularly by the Consumers' Association, that must be done at the beginning. Secondly, we were told, "You

can only proceed with this kind of retail competition if you have a very tough-minded regulator who's going to act in the public interest to protect electricity customers from what we can predict

will be some unscrupulous behaviour."

There was virtually nothing done, until very recently, by either the government or the energy board to inform consumers. My colleague Mr Bryant a moment ago

outlined what Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party have advocated for some time now. I want to make the point that at this juncture we have about a million retail contracts that have been

entered into. My guess is that at least 20% are grade A stinkers, and that means that there are hundreds of thousands of electricity consumers, many of them older people, who have been ripped off;

and many of these people have been ripped off by our own company, Hydro One. I had a meeting some weeks ago in the village of Beachburg in my constituency and I had three elderly women tell me

about what happened on their street, with agents of Hydro One walking in at dusk waving scissors, grabbing Hydro bills out of their hands, cutting them up and walking out the door. That's just one

of several examples.

Those people, many of them, are not going to understand what happened to them until some time in mid to late June or July of this year. In that case it was our

company, Hydro One. My own father signed a contract some months ago -- after I told him quite frankly to be careful; yes, it's true. But do you know one of the reasons he signed? Because the person

who came to him was from Ontario Hydro One and he thought that by signing with that company he was making a good deal. Nobody told him, least of all Hydro One, that he would be one of nearly

200,000 customers who signed up with Hydro One only to have their entire business sold away at the eve of market opening in late April of this spring to Union Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Epcor of Edmonton, Alberta. That's just another example of how Ontario consumers were scammed and ripped off by, in this case, our own company. And there will be a political whirlwind, make no

mistake about it. We are just weeks away from tens of thousands of Ontario customers mad as hell at what was done to them.

My colleague from Glengarry is just arriving. He's got a great story to tell about how he was the victim of what looks like a pure forgery.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Let's hear from your colleague.

Mr Conway: He may speak at some point. The minister of economic development trivializes this. Well, let's talk about this.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I just want to say to my colleagues in this Legislature, mark my words: four to six weeks from now, your constituency offices are

going to be doing little else than explaining to people these electricity bills. We failed miserably to protect people in a fair and sensible way. We were warned by a number of knowledgeable

witnesses.

I see just this week that the Ontario Energy Board has published a new bulletin. I give them some credit: they now seem to be alive to the problems in the

marketplace. Forgery, apparently, is now an issue of which they are seized. It is too late for hundreds of thousands of people. We talk about protecting the consumer; we haven't done nearly enough.

It's a failure of public responsibility by this government, including the minister of economic development. As I say, one of the worst offenders is our own company.

Let me just add this: for the new electricity order to work, we have to have a very effective regulator. For months now, in fact for years now, there have been

complaints. They've been all over the consumer columns in the Ontario press. They've been reported to members on both sides of the House. The regulator has been very, very slow to action. I've

spoken to Mr Laughren about this, and there is no question that the early going in this electricity business gives me great concern about just how effective our regulator is, not just in the easy

part of this -- regulating this kind of retail misconduct -- but what the regulator's power is really going to be when they have to get at the really complicated stuff that we've seen, particularly

in the United States.

I do want to give my friend Mr Lalonde the last 48 seconds.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I should be able to defend myself. Yes, someone has forged my signature not only once, but

twice. It's in the detectives' hands at the present time. But in Alexandria, people walked in on the Quesnel family. This company, which is called Ontario Energy Savings Corp, should have its

your power off tomorrow." This is the approach that these retailers are taking with the people.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Further debate.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to have a couple of minutes to respond to the bill before us here today, a bill that would

seek to return us to the days of ballooning debt, out-of-control bureaucracies, wasteful construction practices, $38 billion in accumulated debt, no consumer choice. That's precisely the world that

the NDP would have us go back to.

This bill was very hastily put together. I could criticize it on any number of legal bases as well. The very language in there is quite improper in a number of

cases. But let me object more to the principle. While I am very sympathetic to the member from Glengarry and the comments he has just made, that is precisely why the regulations that are already in

place include extraordinary protection for consumers. The power is there for the OEB to come down like a ton of bricks on any retailer that engages in unscrupulous practice. I am sure the member

will pursue that matter through the appropriate fora and that the appropriate remedies will be taken against the offenders if, as and when their offence is proven.

But that one example should not take us away, should not deter us, from continuing down a path that is no different from the path that was taken in

telecommunications 10 years ago. Ten years ago, we had only one choice for phone companies. Now you have at least two choices for local phone service, an infinite number of choices for

long-distance carriers, and four different cellphone companies. You have, in today's dollars, lower costs for phone service than you had 10 years ago. The member opposite still has not come up with

a single commodity ever where if more people bring more product to a market, prices go up. But somehow we're going to suspend all the laws of supply and demand just because this is something that

the vaunted old monopoly of Ontario Hydro used to deliver to our doors.

The fact of the matter is, the old monopolistic ways aren't worth protecting. They aren't worth defending. The member should be ashamed to stand up and suggest

consumers would be better protected by throwing on another $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this province -- their share of the accumulated Ontario Hydro debt. That was the legacy of having

a monopoly. That was the legacy of a lack of consumer choice.

On top of everything else, the reality is that for the first time ever we now have, as of right, the ability for anybody who wants to generate green power the

chance to sell into the marketplace. We were constrained. If Ontario Hydro didn't think a wind turbine was a good idea or a solar array was a good idea, you didn't have a choice. You didn't have a

chance to buy green power. You were going to buy coal. That's what delivered the peak power in this province, and still does. But under our new system, if someone like Toronto Hydro Energy Services

wants to put a wind turbine down on the waterfront, they will absolutely and positively have the ability to sell that power into the grid. Consumers who want to do something about cleaning up our

environment will have, as a right, the ability to buy that power.

This bill is wrong. The bill would take us back down a very dangerous path. That's why I will be opposing.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

The leader from Kenora-Rainy River has two minutes to reply.

Mr Hampton: I'm pleased to respond to some of the comments. I won't be responding to Mr Gilchrist's comments because in fact they didn't

address anything in the bill. The bill is about consumer protection. The bill is about those close to one million people out there across this province who in many cases have been misled, have been

lied to, have had their signatures forged or have been threatened with having their power shut off if they didn't sign with one of these door-to-door rip-off retail electricity outfits. That's what

it's about.

The government members who want to pretend that they are in favour of protecting consumers alluded to some things that I think need to be addressed. First of

all, they said that signing a contract with one of these electricity retailers is like signing a mortgage. The reality is, these retail contracts are like signing a mortgage with a very crooked

salesman. Furthermore, most people, when they're signing a mortgage, don't have to deal with someone who is deliberately misleading them. They don't have to deal with someone who is willing to

forge their signature. They don't have to deal with someone who knowingly is providing them with false information. They don't have to deal with someone who threatens them. They don't have to deal

with crooks. Furthermore, when people are signing a mortgage, they generally know what they're paying now and therefore they're able to examine the alternatives carefully. But the way the

government has designed the so-called retailing of electricity, people don't have the information to be able to compare. People don't have the information to be able to know what is the price of

generation now and what is the price of generated electricity that is being offered to them or, in many cases, directed to them by these retail consumers.

That is why this legislation should be passed. This should be about protecting the consumer, something that the Ontario Energy Board doesn't have the tools to

do now. That's why this legislation is necessary.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 96, the House stands suspended until 12 noon.

The House recessed from 1145 to 1159.

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The time allotted for private members' public business has expired, so we will go through the voting

procedure.

Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 14. 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.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell. We will defer those bells until after the other item of business.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT (CONSUMER PROTECTION), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ (PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 44.

Mr Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 55. 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.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 14. All those in favour will please rise and remain standing

until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Coburn, Brian

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Spina, Joseph

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 59; the nays are 17.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be referred to a standing committee?

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I would request that the bill be referred to the general government committee.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

The majority is not in favour. The bill will be referred to the committee of the whole.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds to let those come in or leave.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT (CONSUMER PROTECTION), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ (PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 55. All those in favour will please rise and remain standing

until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 35; the nays are 42.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1215 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My colleague the member for Windsor West asked a question of the Associate Minister of Health and

Long-Term Care earlier this week. She asked whether it was acceptable that personal care for seniors should be rationed to the point of getting one bath per week. This was not a hypothetical

question. My colleague was referring to a specific case in Ottawa of a 76-year-old woman, a stroke victim living at home on her own, who can bathe only with assistance. Her home care hours had been

reduced, and she does get just one bath per week.

The newly appointed executive director of the community care access centre in Ottawa was quite clear about the situation. Given increasing need for service and

no new money, they are cutting back on hours of care in order to get people off the waiting list. Sadly, the associate minister chose to ignore both the question and the reality of what is

happening in home care under his government.

There are two ways of handling waiting lists. One is to provide enough funding to meet the needs and still offer quality care. The other is to cut budgets and

demand that more people be given less service. That is clearly the direction this government has taken.

In 15 years in this Legislature, I have never seen anything more vicious than the January firing and replacing of selected executive directors and board

members of community care access centres in this province. The new appointees have been given their marching orders: waiting lists are to be made to disappear regardless of what cuts have to be

made in the quality of care that is offered. It's happening in Ottawa, it's happening in my home community of Thunder Bay and it will keep happening across this province as long as the government

is more concerned about tax cuts than care.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Ever since our government took full control of GO Transit, it is my pleasure to report

that GO Transit continues to improve their service. On April 29, service on the Georgetown GO train line increased to nine eastbound and nine westbound trains each workday. This is great news for

the people and economy of Brampton and Malton. My constituents rely heavily on GO Transit to get around. I hope this added service encourages more drivers to get on the GO. These new trains will

also better serve those who are already using GO, giving passengers more flexible travel times.

We are also happy to see $4.2 million worth of improvements to the Bramalea GO station, as well as increased GO bus service. The Highway 407 GO bus route now

offers my constituents a 25-minute ride to York University or a 70-minute ride to McMaster University, as well as direct rides to the cities of Hamilton and Pickering.

These Smart Growth improvements in transportation are steps in the right direction, but like many of my constituents I recognize more needs to be done to truly

meet our city's rapidly growing needs. In particular, let me urge the Minister of Transportation to push forward with the quick extension of Highway 427 north of Queen Street and the extension of

Highway 410 north of Bovaird Drive. I know this government is committed to keeping people moving and keeping the economy strong.

Interjection: Keeping them on the GO.

Mr Gill: Exactly.

LABOUR MOBILITY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I'd like to state how pleased I was that the Ontario Legislature this morning supported the passage of

second reading of my private member's bill, Bill 14, Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act, which basically sets up some penalties for Quebec workers in northeastern Ontario specifically for coming into

Ontario and stealing Ontarians' jobs when Ontario workers don't have the same access to those jobs in the province of Quebec.

As a Canadian, I believe in free labour mobility and feel we should not be having roadblocks. But enough is enough, and when Quebec continues to put up those

roadblocks against Ontario workers, it's time that somebody stood up.

I was a little disappointed that the government members did block referral to the standing committee on general government, but it still stays alive and could

be called at any time in committee of the whole.

What I was really surprised about, though, was the stance of the NDP caucus in the Legislature. When I brought this bill forward three years ago, maybe because

there was a federal election going on -- I know Len Wood was running in Timmins-James Bay for the New Democratic Party -- they supported it, but this time they decided not to support it. I think

the problem is not only the same today, but unfortunately it has worsened. Many workers in northern Ontario have had their jobs stolen by Quebec workers. It's time somebody stood up and said enough

is enough. Maybe it takes some tough remedy to do that, but we're prepared to do that over here in the Liberal caucus. I would hope that other northern members from all parties would finally

support and stand up for the workers of northeastern Ontario.

CURTIS JOSEPH

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today in light of the current circumstances to talk about a constituent of mine. Curtis Shayne Joseph was

born in Keswick, Ontario, in April 1967. For those of you who do not recognize the name, I will refer to him as "Cujo," the star goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Cujo attended the University of Wisconsin on a hockey scholarship and then signed as a free agent to the St Louis Blues in 1989. In 1994, Cujo was traded to

the Edmonton Oilers -- happy to be back in Canada. It was not until the summer of 1998 that Cujo signed a four-year contract with the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Curtis Joseph has proudly represented Canada in the world championships and at the Olympics. I am proud to honour a talented member of my constituency and a

Canadian champion. I want to let Cujo know that tonight we are all wishing him well and we'll be screaming, "Go, Leafs, go."

ONTARIO SECURITY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety and Security caught all Ontarians, even the Premier, by surprise in announcing

that a terrorist cell associated with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network was forced to leave the province. Further, he stated that there are other known terrorist groups operating in Ontario. I

remind the government of the seriousness of this statement. The government has said it was simply a case of surveillance. However, we are no safer as Ontarians, as North Americans, if this group of

terrorists is operating just outside our borders.

The Anti-Terrorism Act at the federal level has given the police the ability to arrest suspected terrorists. It contains a beefed-up police power of arrest

without warrant in

section 83.3(4)(b). The police can arrest someone if they "suspect on reasonable grounds that the detention of the person in custody is necessary in order to prevent a terrorist

activity."

Gary Trotter, the former crown counsel, says that this provision allows the police to arrest someone even if the threat that they may commit an offence is not

imminent: "The

section seems aimed at taking individuals out of circulation in the hopes of preventing terrorist activities."

I find it strange that a government that prides itself on being tough on crime and terrorism, that threatens to throw squeegee kids and the homeless in jail,

that kicks kids out of school for swearing, could do nothing about the terrorist cell lurking in our midst. I find that if this government was serious about fighting terrorism, it would not have

let them slip away.

KITCHENER LAWN BOWLING CLUB

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I rise today to comment on a very important day in my riding of Kitchener Centre. The Kitchener Lawn

Bowling Club will be 100 years old on June 2, 2002. This weekend, on Saturday, May 25, I will be at the club to join in the celebrations and to present the club with a certificate.

Lawn bowling can be traced back to the Norman Conquest in Britain. Always popular with the people, it was banned in 1366 for fear that archery would suffer.

However, once guns and powder arrived, that threat disappeared.

It was mainly the rich who enjoyed this sport originally. It was the sport of kings, of the clergy, of nobility and men of quality. It excluded women, I will

say, at that time. Shakespeare and Sir Francis Drake were avid fans.

In Victorian times the game was vigorously revived. Scottish immigrants introduced the game wherever they went. The game spread to Australia, South Africa,

India, Japan and Hong Kong. Canada's first bowling green was probably in Annapolis, Nova Scotia.

Kitchener's lawn bowling club, one of four in the twin cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, was formed as the Berlin Lawn Bowling Club on June 2, 1902. Most of

the well-known names in Kitchener's history were members. Over the past 40 years many changes have taken place, but the game remains basically the same. Lawn bowling is a sport for all to

enjoy.

I invite everyone to come to Kitchener and participate in the festivities, have a good time and learn the game.

NORTHERN UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party believe that there is a role for government to ensure that

the wealth and opportunities of our province are shared and accessible to all citizens regardless of where they live. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of the Conservative government of this

province. I'm concerned by this government's record of shortchanging the citizens and students of northern Ontario.

A new report released this week revealed that students at Lakehead, Laurentian, Algoma and Nipissing University are paying a greater share of the education

bill than students in other areas of the province.

Only 4% of the government's operating grant goes to these schools -- 4%. What this means is that northern schools are being forced to dig even deeper into

tuition to cover their operating costs. The study also underscores that the neo-conservative policy of linking public dollars to private co-financing is not working. It does what all Conservative

policies are meant to do: benefit those who already have. This is wrong, and these inequities should be stopped.

I recently raised the same concern when this government announced new applied degree programs for the colleges. Twelve applied degree programs were announced,

and none were in the north.

This government has neglected the students of the north by denying the colleges and universities of northern Ontario the tools they need to advance their

region.

I call on the Premier and his government to level the playing field and ensure that opportunities are distributed in a more balanced way, allowing all

Ontarians an opportunity to prosper.

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This afternoon I'll be introducing the Tommy Douglas Act (Patients' Bill of Rights) on behalf of the New

Democratic Party. This is the third time the NDP has introduced a patients' bill of rights. In 1998, the first bill was introduced by Marion Boyd and was debated at second reading. Conservative

members spoke in favour of the bill and then voted against referring it to the social development committee. The bill was reintroduced in April 1999 but died on the order paper. I am pleased to

introduce it again today.

The Tommy Douglas bill of rights sets out what Ontario patients can and should expect from the publicly funded, publicly administered health care system. The

bill provides for an Ontario health care standards commissioner who will establish provincial standards for high-quality health care in association with health care professionals and

organizations.

The health care standards commissioner will be responsible for monitoring the provisions of the patients' bill of rights to ensure compliance and to make

recommendations to the Legislature for improvements to laws and policies governing health care. The commissioner will investigate complaints and report annually to the Legislature.

The bill provides whistle-blower protection for health care workers who report incidences where our health care system has let down patients and their

families. The bill would extend the principles of the Canada Health Act to the long-term-care sector.

My bill will be debated next Thursday morning, and I trust that all members will support it, especially government members, since the former Minister of

Health, Elizabeth Witmer, promised a bill of rights to ONA and RNAO in 1997. It was a commitment in the 1999 Conservative election platform and was promised again by this government in the throne

speeches and budgets of 1999 and 2000.

I look forward to passage next week and to referral to committee.

VINCE AUDIBERT BOATHOUSE

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): On May 11, the new home of the St John Ambulance water patrol program was opened at the newly dedicated Vince

Audibert Boathouse. The boathouse replaces an aging structure that served the unit for 20 years.

The St John Ambulance water patrol unit provides an essential service to the people of Niagara Falls. By monitoring the fast-flowing water currents of the

Chippawa Creek, this program has prevented our residents and tourists from countless accidents and injuries over the many years.

The unit's old boathouse was decrepit and increasingly in need of replacement. The program subsequently rented a slip at the boat club in Chippawa. This,

however, meant that expensive rescue equipment had to be hauled between the organization's headquarters and the launch.

The community decided to rally together to build a new boathouse. Funding was provided by private donations, corporate supporters like OPG, and city council,

while the tireless and dedicated members of the Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association offered free labour.

The boathouse is named after Mr Vince Audibert, the chairman of the boat patrol committee, whose steadfast commitment and drive saw the completion of this

project. Mr Audibert is a long-time volunteer in the Niagara community and has always been the principal driver behind the boat patrol.

This boathouse represents the true spirit of co-operation in Niagara Falls. I'd like to offer my congratulations to everybody involved.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on public accounts and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill 95,

An Act to require open meetings and more stringent conflict rules for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies /

Projet de loi 95, Loi exigeant des réunions publiques et des règles plus strictes de règlement de conflit pour les commissions et conseils provinciaux et municipaux ainsi que les

autres organismes publics.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1345 to 1350.

The Speaker: Mr Gerretsen has moved the adoption of the report of the standing committee on public accounts regarding Bill 95.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

The Speaker: All those opposed will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 41; the nays are 30.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This morning the government members of the standing committee on

public accounts defeated Bill 95. I guess what it shows is that the government doesn't have the political courage to support this legislation.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order, I'm afraid.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

Ms Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to promote patients' rights and to increase accountability in Ontario's health care system / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à promouvoir les

droits des patients et à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes dans le système de soins de santé de l'Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Tommy Douglas Act codifies the rights of residents of Ontario who receive health care services in the

form of a patients' bill of rights. The bill provides for the appointment of a health care standards commissioner, an officer of the Legislature, who will perform functions such as participating in

the setting of health care standards and the development of complaint procedures, monitoring health care standards and making recommendations to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and to the

Legislature. The bill establishes whistle-blower protection for the employees, the providers of health care services. The bill requires conspicuous posting of copies of the patients' bill of rights

and of the whistle-blower protection provisions.

RICHARD RUSTON

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent to say some remarks about

yet another deceased member of this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Conway: As we speak, about 350 kilometres southwest of this place, in the beautiful flatlands of Essex county, my old friend Dick Ruston is

being laid to rest. I know that on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and one of our colleagues particularly, Bruce Crozier -- the current member for Essex is attending the funeral this afternoon -- we want

to extend our condolences to his wife of 59 years, Shirley, and to their children.

Dick Ruston was the Liberal member for Essex North for 17 or 18 years, from 1967 to 1985, and a very good member was he. I counted Dick as a good friend.

My friend Bradley is a much calmer, more diplomatic person today, largely because of the tutelage that he underwent when Dick Ruston was the whip. If Dick were

here today, he'd say, "Now, Conway, keep it fairly short, and not too much baloney." That's not always an easy thing for me to do.

He was a plain-talking, positive kind of guy who had very definite views. My friend Mr Sterling might remember some of those views. I can think of a couple of

pretty contentious issues where Dick didn't mind telling the Minister of Education just exactly what he thought. It was his opinion and maybe not necessarily the opinion of his colleagues.

He was out of that old, clear Grit tradition of southwestern Ontario. He believed in local government. The best government, he would argue, is the smaller unit

closest to the people. He certainly brought that opinion to our caucus over his long years of service here.

Dick served as the reeve of Maidstone township before coming here and was, as I indicated earlier, whip of our caucus for many years.

Most politicians like to skate. Dick Ruston liked to dance. He was a hell of a good dancer. He knew how to have a good time. One of the things I think we must

observe about the political class is that we are sometimes given to a little too much wringing of the hands. I've sometimes felt that, after a while, your average member of the Legislature or the

Parliament has lost sight of how to have a good time. Dick Ruston always knew how to balance the important business that was his responsibility with a good time. He certainly enjoyed a very full

and happy retirement, although the last few years were difficult as he struggled with Alzheimer's disease.

He was, as I indicated earlier, a man of the people who was very positive, very frank, a valuable member of our caucus; somebody who brought a definite set of

opinions to local and provincial issues.

As I said earlier, when I came here in 1975, he took me under his wing. I considered him a very good friend. We had many happy times together in his home down

in Woodslee.

I want to say particularly to his wife, Shirley, who was such a happy partner of his through those many years of public life: to you, Shirley, and to your

family, we express our condolences. We want you to know that your husband's memory will be long cherished by his colleagues, past and present.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm honoured on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to join in this tribute to former member Dick

Ruston, who passed away at the age of 82. He had a full political career, of course, like so many politicians not only of his era but currently serving at the municipal level, not just in elected

political positions but on so many boards and agencies and charitable organizations, where he helped and did an outstanding job at making his community a better place -- a full political life and

also a full life in his own right. He was 82 years old when he passed away, and for 18 of those years, from 1967 to 1985, he served here in this Legislature, of course as an opposition member.

Perhaps one of the real tests of the electability of a politician is a politician who can get himself or herself elected contrary to the prevailing wave, if

you will. Dick Ruston did that, being elected from down in Essex when the Conservatives were, as they were, firmly entrenched, perhaps far differently from the way they are now. But at a time when

the Conservatives were firmly entrenched, clearly for a gentleman like Mr Ruston to find himself elected and then re-elected and re-elected again was an indication not only of his popularity but of

his talents and skills.

One reads numerous newspaper reports and reads of the despair of his then leader, David Peterson, at his retiring in 1985. Of course, by retiring he passed

that riding on and wasn't able to share in the period of time when the Liberals formed the government. But he served not only his community; he served his party and he served this assembly.

I note that Jim Foulds, an NDP member from the Thunder Bay area who served with Dick Ruston and who was as partisan a politician as ever could have been or

ever will be, and who noted the same of Mr Ruston in his recollections of him, also indicated that when he and Mr Ruston would leave this chamber, as was the case with so many of the other

colleagues of Mr Ruston, partisanship was set aside and abandoned. It speaks to an era when there was a higher degree of collegiality here, some genuine friendships developing and perhaps levels of

trust which the passage of time have made at the very least more difficult.

I also note that when Mr Ruston retired in 1985, his community of course wanted to pay tribute to him -- Mr Ruston was 65 years old at the time. The Knights of

Columbus hall was used for a public gathering, a dinner to fete Mr Ruston. Not only were there numerous Liberals there, as one would expect, and of course family members and friends from the

community and colleagues from the municipal political level, but one will note that at that tribute to Mr Ruston there were also prominent New Democrats of the day. He was clearly loved by his

community, loved by his colleagues and, as important, respected by his colleagues.

The role of whip is a unique challenge in any caucus and, clearly, when Mr Peterson chose Mr Ruston as his whip, he took note of the many qualities and skills

Mr Ruston had.

So New Democrats join with other members in this assembly in paying tribute to Mr Ruston, acknowledging his tremendous contribution to his community and to the

province -- his service here in this assembly -- and we join other members in passing on our condolences, our most sincere sympathies, to his family but also to his many, many friends and

colleagues in his community and beyond.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): I had the pleasure of sitting in the Legislature with Dick Ruston from 1977 to 1985. I

guess Dick sort of missed the timing, in terms of his parliamentary career, because he was here for 15 or 18 years, and yet he came in in 1985, just at the end of the long dynasty -- 42 years -- of

the Progressive Conservative Party, and never got to the government side.

But one of the things I can remember about Dick was his frankness and his straightforwardness. There was no spin on this gentleman to speak of at all. But he

carried that characteristic not only in terms of debate he would have in this place -- and none of that directness was ever taken as being mean-spirited; it was just directness in terms of his talk

about issues.

I must say at this juncture too that I guess his most ardent interventions came on behalf of the farming community of southwestern Ontario. That's where he

placed himself in terms of politics. While Mr Conway refers to him as a Grit of southwestern Ontario, I can tell you that probably Dick was far right of a lot of the people on this side of the

House at this time, and at that time as well.

He would also carry this frankness toward meeting with government ministers. I think he was able to achieve a great deal on behalf of his constituents during

that time, because they respected the directness and the fact that he would also hold to his word in terms of any kind of dealings he had with a minister in order to gain an advantage for a

constituent or for a municipality that he represented as well.

As Mr Kormos mentioned, that was a time when there was perhaps more closeness between the two sides of the House. I quite frankly attribute that to the

intervention of television in 1986 or 1987. That has in some ways worked against members of the ilk of Dick Ruston, in that his speeches were usually relatively short, compact and direct, and

perhaps they don't really fit today's Parliament in terms of the kind of representation he might bring.

I can remember spending many nights in this Legislature, sitting with him either on that side or on this side and talking to him about the problems in his

constituency and the problems with the government and about issues. He also was a very solid member for his party. He participated fully in this Legislature in opposition. He was there for the

votes. He was there in committee. He spoke in committee. He participated fully and was indeed a tribute to this institution as a member of the provincial Parliament.

I believe Dick and his wife Shirley had five children, and our party would like to extend our condolences to all of them, to the family and to his community,

which I am sure remembers him well. We remember Dick well, and we thank his family for sharing so much of Dick with the rest of Ontario.

The Speaker: I thank members for their comments and will ensure the family receives copies of Hansard with the comments here today.

VISITOR

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I'd like to welcome to the members' gallery a visitor from the city of Manfredonia, Italy, in the province

of Puglia, Domenico D'Aciero.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. I'm holding in my hand

part 1 of the Walkerton report. Of the

28 recommendations in

part 1 of the