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

June 5, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Jun-05 (PDF)

L050 - Wed 5 Jun 2013 / Mer 5 jun 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 5 June 2013 Mercredi 5 juin 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

RENEWABLE ENERGY

IMMIGRATION POLICY

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY SERVICE

WASTE DIVERSION

CANCER TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GENTLEMEN OF THE ROAD

SIMCOE STOPOVER

AIR-RAIL LINK

CARASSAUGA FESTIVAL

JOHN VERWEY

DONNA-LYNN MCCALLUM

STELLA GEORGE

PRISONERS’ MASSACRE ANNIVERSARY

BURLINGTON SOUND OF MUSIC FESTIVAL

PRISONERS’ MASSACRE ANNIVERSARY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

METROLINX AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR METROLINX

COMPANIES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

VISANT LES COMPAGNIES

INFRASTRUCTURE

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

EN MATIÈRE D’INFRASTRUCTURE

OSPCA OVERSIGHT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013

SUR LA SURVEILLANCE

DE LA SPAO

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT (CHILDREN

16 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES

À L’ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

(ENFANTS DE 16 ANS ET PLUS)

OSPCA FAIRNESS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ À LA SPAO

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY

TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT

(CHOICE OF VETERINARIAN), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L’ONTARIO

(CHOIX DU VÉTÉRINAIRE)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NOT-FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK /

SEMAINE DE SENSIBILISATION

AU HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL

NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK

NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

PAN AM GAMES

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

CHILD CUSTODY

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

PROSPEROUS AND FAIR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 POUR UN ONTARIO

PROSPÈRE ET ÉQUITABLE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 15, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 55, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les agences de recouvrement, la Loi de 2002 sur la protection du consommateur et la Loi de 2002 sur le courtage commercial et immobilier et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I was so pleased this morning to be advised that I was going to be given an opportunity—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry, member from Durham, I’ve been advised of a different rotation. Thank you. If you could take your seat.

Questions and comments from the speech given by the member from Kenora–Rainy River? Questions and comments.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Good morning, Speaker. Although I wasn’t here to listen to the debate from the member for Kenora–Rainy River, I read a bit of the Hansard. But I want to talk about the speech that she gave on the budget a couple of days ago. As a matter of fact, I sent her a congratulatory note at that time because I think that’s well worth—

Interjection.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Are we okay, Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to confess that the member identified the fact that he read part of the Hansard, and I would ask him to stay focused on the bill that we are talking about. That would be very helpful.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker. You know, I always thought it was nice to pay compliments to members in the House regardless of what side of the House they’re on. There’s so much negativity in the House from time to time—on all sides—that it’s nice to say something. Anyway, she gave an excellent speech, and I would hope that people would read that.

But dealing with Bill 55, the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, this is an initiative that was actually brought forward a number of years ago by a then Minister of Consumer Services. We won’t say who it was.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Name names.

Hon. John Gerretsen: No, I will not name names.

I think that all of these initiatives that the good minister that we have there now has brought forward are really in the interest of the consumers. They are all about consumer protection. They are about consumer protection from door-to-door sales individuals—and there’s a role for them; there is a role for door-to-door salesmen. I’m not going to condemn them all. But there should be a cooling-off period, particularly for the elderly in our society who may, at times, feel that they might have been taken advantage of.

That’s why the cooling-off period that this bill calls for with respect to the sale, for example, of water heaters. As well, there are other initiatives in the bill that deal with improving the rules to protect buyers and sellers of real estate. Having been involved in the real estate business for many years as a lawyer, I know that greater protections are required on both sides of that issue, so there’s a cooling-off period as well in that particular regard in many instances.

This is a good bill, and if any bill cries out for support from all sides of the House to better protect the consumers of Ontario, this is the bill. I would urge all the members to vote for it, and congratulations to the member from Kenora–Rainy River.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I was here on May 15, when the member from Kenora–Rainy River made her remarks. As I recall, she was very concerned specifically about the provision on the hot water heaters. This issue is, I think, a good start with aggressive salespeople who, either on the phone or standing on your doorstep, want to sell you some product you may or may not know, but they’re making you think you should buy it.

In this bill, there’s the provision of a cooling-off period. I think we would agree with the necessity to have a cooling-off period so that you can have sober second thought on some of the decisions you may have made. But it doesn’t expunge the responsibility of the consumer to be informed. An old expression is, “Buyer beware.” If the deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. That is good advice. I think it’s advice in any respect. I think of the pages here and people like that. Experience is the greatest teacher.

In this case, I hope to have an opportunity this morning to speak on this bill, because it does, in the best sense, talk to three issues that most members here would hear about. I think the provision under the loan-sharking or debt settlement business is one that—in my riding, just down the street, is one of those payday loan type offices, which I’m not a real big supporter of, although people do get into a cash crunch. They’re often the most vulnerable, and there do need to be some rules around that.

I’d say the group that I don’t really hear a lot about is the real estate brokers. Although it’s a very, very productive part of the economy in Ontario, with house sales and all that, there always needs to be consumer protection in all things we do in this Legislature.

I commend the member from Kenora–Rainy River and look forward to her two-minute response.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I need to commend my colleague from Kenora–Rainy River. When she gave her comments and her words to this debate, I was here for part of it, and I went back to the office and, like a diligent representative, I sat down and watched the remainder of it.

Some of the biggest points I heard is something that both of us share. We have similar backgrounds as far as what we did before we came here: We actually sat with individuals and assisted them. We know the frustration they go through. We understand that sometimes there is the shame of those individuals. They don’t want to divulge the information to their family members because they get a sense, “If I tell anybody, I’ll be laughed at or I’ll be embarrassed at telling people about it.” So sometimes they hide, and we don’t get to help those people.

But through the jobs and functions and the initiatives we had, we were able to pull that information from those individuals. So we have learned first-hand of the benefit we can actually be in assisting these individuals in, first, identifying the problem; two, fixing the problem; and, three, hopefully getting some type of remedy out of it.

Both of us as well have a very large First Nations presence, and a lot of them, along with a lot of other communities in northern Ontario, were extremely taken advantage of when it comes to hydro. Unfortunately, we didn’t see that. If you were here and you had been listening, you would have noticed that very much part and the root of the comments she was making is the cost of hydro and individuals who are being taken advantage of and the aggressive pitches that are being thrown to these communities, especially targeted communities when it comes to seniors.

So I commend the member for the words and the debate that she brought forward. It’s always a pleasure sitting by her side, shoulder to shoulder, because I do know that we share a lot of the same problems and the same issues throughout both of our ridings.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: If I may, Speaker—I guess it’s a point of order—I want to introduce someone very, very important to me, an important member of my family. My sister, Jill MacCharles-Crain, from Ajax is here. She has been with me through thick and thin. I just want to thank her for being here today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’ll remind the member it’s not really a point of order, but for you I’ll let it go.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate it very much.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, you’re mellowing.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes, indeed, he is, and that’s wonderful.

Bill 55: I am obviously very keen about this, as the Minister of Consumer Services. I’m very pleased to hear how supportive everyone seems to be about standing up for consumers in Ontario. When we stand up for consumers in Ontario, we improve consumer confidence, and when we improve consumer confidence, that helps the economy. It’s just very important.

The specific measures in this bill are responding to what we know to be serious issues in the marketplace: door-to-door sales with respect to water heaters; debt settlement companies; and some improvements on real estate transactions that will make it better and more competitive in terms of how fees are constructed for real estate agents and brokers. It will bring us on par, quite frankly, with the rest of Canada. Also, it will deal with the phantom bidding situation that, unfortunately, sometimes arises when people are buying a house and they hear about these phantom biddings and the price goes up.

But do these phantom bids really exist? So the component of the bill with respect to the bidding will just require confirmation about the number of phantom bids that exist.

This is all to say that these are very important measures. They are responsive to documented facts in cases of consumer issues and complaints. At the end of the day, I just hope all parties work together to move this forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Kenora–Rainy River has two minutes.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I would like to thank the Attorney General, the member from Durham, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin and the Minister of Consumer Services for their comments on my debate. I know that it may have been difficult to weigh in a little bit, because I think I spoke a few weeks ago, but I appreciate it nevertheless. Quite candidly, I appreciate the comments made by the Attorney General. I might have to review my notes, because it’s a little concerning that he’s giving me those accolades.

Back to the bill: As the Minister of Consumer Services said, she’s standing up for consumers in Ontario. I would just like to caution her a little bit. It’s true that this bill is a step in the right direction; it is doing some positive things. I think the intent is there, but it really falls short. As the member from Algoma–Manitoulin mentioned, it really falls short in the area of energy retailers. That’s something that I spent the vast majority of my time talking about: all of the people who I have talked to in Kenora–Rainy River who have found themselves, one way or another, locked into these really long, really painful and really unaffordable energy contracts.

The problem that I have with this bill is that it is modelled after the protections that are in place when it comes to energy retailers. If that is the model, we’re in trouble for this bill, because the Ontario Energy Board releases a top-10 list of complaints that are brought forward to the energy board, especially with respect to energy retailers. Time and time again, the top 10 issues are miscellaneous contract issues, cancellation charges that are being unfairly applied or are way too high, despite the legislation. We need to go further, and we need to take a serious look at the protections that are in place for other things.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: I appreciate the opportunity this morning to say a few words on Bill 55. Bill 55 was introduced by Minister MacCharles, the Minister of Consumer Services—welcome to her sister here, as well—on April 18. I don’t think it was much before that that she was sworn in as minister.

I think it is the right thing to do. At the end of the day, you can’t argue with the general concept and the idea here of consumer protection. Some would say, “A little too little.” Some would say, “A little too late.” These are only comments, of course. Our job as opposition is to be opposed in some sort of constructive way.

Now, you look at the bill itself. There really are three provisions. This may be just for the viewer. Most people here are very familiar with this bill.

I’m a bit surprised, actually, that it’s here this morning. We’re very close to the end of the session. There’s co-operative housing and there are a few other bills on food safety and local food and lots of issues that are out there that aren’t really resolved. I’m a bit surprised that this bill would poke its head up here this morning. I’m not sure if it will actually go anyplace beyond this provision of second reading.

I know that the NDP have been talking about the issue with respect to, in a general sense, the issue of consumer protection. That’s probably a decent way to start, because consumer protection in Ontario—it’s not just the water heaters. One of the things we hear about during the winter is the high cost of energy, the high cost of electricity. Now, if you want to protect the consumers in Ontario, you’d have to look more broadly than just the hot water heater. If the government was really progressive, they would look at one of the largest appliances consuming electricity in the home: the hot water heater.

It’s like boiling a 40-litre or a 40-gallon kettle all the time. Think about it. What a wasteful use of energy.

In fact, there are products out there. There are in-line hot water heaters; there are solar heaters. Some countries mandate that you heat your hot water through solar. Israel is a case in point. There are other cases; I believe parts of Australia have the same thing. The point I’m making is that rather than just come up with this idea that they’re going to let these people stop knocking on your door to sell you a new hot water heater, why don’t they bring in a new product?

Why wouldn’t they, on this new home renovation tax credit they have—which is another game entirely. Why wouldn’t they allow them to save their—because seniors—you know this yourself, Mr. Speaker. I’ve heard you speak of it—passionately, I might add. Seniors, in their home, are finding that they can’t stay there. In fact, the Liberals have a plan called Aging at Home. We actually call the plan “aging alone,” because there’s no home care, really—a couple of hours a day.

But here’s the issue: They could have that person knocking on the door and saying, “Look, I could save you $50 a month if you invest, say, $2,500 in this in-line hot water heater. You could save $50 a month.” That would be a progressive move. That would be consumer protection. That would be protecting the person of modest income.

I can’t disagree: There has been some very aggressive information with respect to the retailers in electricity and the other subsidiary companies of these local utilities that sell these appliances like hot water tanks and stuff like that. I, in fact, replaced mine.

Then, when you look at it, there are other options there too. That’s just one topic. I wish I had an hour, because there’s so much in this bill that I could talk about. But here’s the issue: On the hot water, then you have the choice. Do you want to heat the water with electricity—very, very inefficient—or with natural gas? What’s wrong with that?

Hon. John Gerretsen: That’s the way to go.

Mr. John O’Toole: Exactly. Gas was negatively priced a few months ago. I could diverge onto that. That’s a different topic too, because I’m not in favour of fracking gas—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sit down, please.

I’d like it a little bit quieter, please. I’ve got about six or seven different conversations going. The member from Durham is very, very easy to hear, and I’m having trouble hearing him.

Continue.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much for that kind interruption, if that’s possible.

I guess the point is that I would probably encourage and educate the consumers. This is what the government could do: Educate the consumers on some of these options about having an efficient use of hot water heaters in your home.

Then I ask, if they’re going to do this protection thing, how are they actually going to enforce it? They’re going to have to set up a bureaucracy, something like the LHINs, to take care of enforcing these consumer protection provisions. They’ll have to have a new office building built and hire several inspectors with cars to travel around the province checking. See, this is what happens when government implements things. It frightens me, actually, that part of the bill.

Now, I won’t trivialize it by going on too much more on that, because I think that debt settlement is another thing. Now, you can’t put them out of business, but they could make access to credit for people that are in trouble—I think governments could do a better job there as well. In fact, I think by starting early, improving the education, the budgeting information in our schools—use of money, use of credit should be a core component of education in schools. I think of the young pages here, who are probably in grade 8.

We thought they were finished this week, but they’re going to be here next week, I hope, because they’ve done a great job. When they go back, some of them are going to have to write exams. I wonder, if they’re in grade 8, if they’re going to take courses next year about consumer protection. This is about learning how to use credit wisely.

Once you’re in this dilemma of going to these payday loan places—I just say the debt settlement issue is very prominent in the media and advertising stories about loan sharks, and customers taken to the cleaners are likely to be widely reported. I would suggest it’s a good thing to report, because there are often shady circumstances in those situations.

I see advertisements on television that you get $200 for $20. Wait a minute. They mean $20 a day. You get $200, but they’re going to charge you $20 a day, and in 10 days, you’ll owe them $400. You still owe them the $200, but you’re going to owe them—so this is the unreasonable level. I think in the plain-language legislation, they should put a peak or a cap on the amount of interest that is charged. That’s called debt or rent; it’s actually called rent of capital.

So those are the three provisions in this bill, very briefly, the three sections of the bill dealing with consumer protection: on the hot water heaters, primarily with a cooling-off period; and then on the debt collection agencies, it’s rules for the debt settlers, debt settlement they call it; and the real estate is abolishing commission and fee restrictions.

Now, that’s another area where I think they’re a pretty disciplined group, but the real estate brokers act has two significant components if you look at it. One of them is, first of all, it’s a disclosure piece. What that means is the real estate agent can’t work on both ends of the deal, as I see it. They have an inherent conflict, and they should disclose these conflicts to you. I’m not making any specific—but also the provision of tied selling.

If the real estate agent says you should have a planner come into your home to stage the house, and, “I’ve got this very good friend of mine who can do that for you,” that staging the house part, and now you should also have this home inspection done—if they’re tied to these other transactional things, I think we should be very clear about these tied selling provisions, if you follow me. This is not in there. I’m disappointed in that.

In fact, I’d like to see the bill go to committee, because I have several ideas that I want to bring forward as amendments. I know our critic has as well.

I wish I was the critic of this ministry. In fact it turns out I’m not the critic of any ministry at the moment, but that could be explained at another time. I would suspect that I have way too much criticism on almost everything that goes on here, especially when I read the clippings today. I’ll just summarize this, Speaker—you’ll allow me, I’m sure—the “Liberals Leave the Door Open on Proposed Fees.” This concerns me. I want to protect the taxpayers of Ontario, and that’s what our leader, Tim Hudak, is saying every day during question period.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order. Questions and comments? The Minister of Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s always a delight for me to listen to the member from Durham. Gosh, he’s talking about clippings. I’m just reading a clipping here, “Hudak Cools on Doug Ford PC Run,” an interesting comment today.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to get back to Bill 55. It’s interesting: I remember the last two years I was city councillor in Peterborough—that would be in 2001 and 2002. In the ward that I represented, there were a lot of seniors in the south end of Peterborough. Many of them didn’t have any family in Peterborough, and people would be knocking on their doors or calling them non-stop. They were fast-talking individuals with their clipboards and their contracts, really putting enormous pressure on seniors to sign on.

I would get probably 20 or 25 calls a week, as the local city councillor. My advice was this: Don’t sign anything. I would often tell them to stick with the Peterborough Utilities Services, which was owned by the city of Peterborough, a public utility. If you wanted water heaters, be it electric or gas, stick with them, because they were a very reliable organization.

The Minister of Consumer Affairs for the province of Ontario, the Honourable Tracy MacCharles, deserves a lot of credit for bringing this legislation forward, because I think that all of us in our constituency offices know this is probably the number one complaint: door-to-door salesmen, whether they have any background or not, trying to get people to sign these contracts. People get into contracts, and then they read the fine print and find out that they shouldn’t have been involved in this contract at all. I know it also happens in Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Mr. Speaker, so I know you’re well aware of this problem. This will also clean up the debt services.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for getting a couple of thoughts on the record this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a privilege to speak to this particular bill. I always admire the member from Durham, when he gets up and speaks, just how articulate he is and how knowledgeable he is. Of course, he’s been here in this chamber for a number of years now, and we always admire what he has to say.

When we talk about this particular bill, a couple of things come to mind. He mentioned the words “buyer beware.” I remember, back in my high school days when we took Latin, it was “caveat emptor.” On these kinds of issues, I really do think, feel and believe that consumers really need to be aware that there are some shady people out there. A lot of times these door-to-door salesmen will prey—that’s P-R-E-Y—on some of our most vulnerable people in our communities, and that would even be our seniors, because seniors are far more trusting and understanding. As a result, they find after a while that they have in fact signed an agreement and they go, “My goodness, what have I done?”

I’ll give you an example of that. Years ago, I used to work for just a tremendous organization down in the Chatham-Kent area, Union Gas—well, it was Union Gas. There would be other natural gas companies coming into our city to get people to sign up. You would show them your bill, and the first thing they did was record your account number. The next thing you know, they’re transferring it over and you don’t have any idea.

But there’s another concern that I have as well, and that is that right now, down in our area, we have these industrial wind turbine salespeople coming along. In Chatham-Kent we probably have well over 300 industrial wind turbines. These salespeople—I often say you’re only as good as your last sale—will go into a farmer’s kitchen, sit down, give them the quick overview of these contracts and what the contracts are all about. People sign, not knowing what they’re signing, and then regret it afterward.

Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m happy to join the debate on Bill 55, the consumer protection act. Speaker, this is an issue that affects people in my community. What we’re talking about, in many ways, is perhaps the kind of predatory salesperson. I would say that part of this is systemic, though. This is about the economy that we’ve created, in which more and more workers are actually desperate just to make a buck and pay the bills. Unfortunately, we’re opening up new markets where people are stooping to new lows in terms of taking advantage of people.

I think that’s the bigger lens that we should look at this in, in that we need to actually create good jobs and not these kinds of jobs in the same sense.

We’ve seen this in a number of ways in my riding. I’ve been working on something with my federal counterpart, Andrew Cash; we call it pay-to-pay. Right now, some of the biggest corporations, Rogers and Bell, are actually charging people an extra couple of bucks to receive their bill. We call it pay-to-pay because you’re paying to pay your bill. This is absolutely unfair, and it’s taking advantage of seniors who are not online and are still paying their bills by paper. These big companies are taking advantage of this. This is just another example of why consumers definitely need protection and why we need to have this discussion and send this to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: This is a very positive bill that I think should have the support, if I were guessing, of a Legislature which is looking objectively and independently at legislation that comes forward, because it responds, I think, to some very legitimate complaints that all of us have heard through our constituency offices in a variety of fields, particularly high-pressure door-to-door sales. I was pleased when the minister provided some information to the House on this and eventually gave her speech on this particular bill.

I think I detected, in the member’s remarks, support for the principle of this particular bill: first of all, better protecting indebted consumers from predatory debt settlement services, which are a genuine problem, again, particularly for people in a vulnerable position.

Installed items such as water heaters are always a problem. I mean, we seem to get a rash of calls on these. We try to follow up for people, but it’s clear that legislation is required.

Again, in the field of real estate, the changes that are made, I think, are positive, and they’ll be supported by people in the real estate community who recognize that their best foot forward is when legitimate, good people in the field—and there are so many of them—are following the same rules that others, who might not want to follow those rules if there were not such legislation, are involved in.

I also note that this legislation has had some debate in the House. I would hope it can move to committee quickly and this legislation could be passed in this particular session. That’s always a hope that I have.

Last, I would say, the member—because I’m responding to his speech—talked about user fees. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there was no government that imposed more user fees than the Harris Conservative government.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Some 985.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I said 978.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Durham has two minutes to reply.

Mr. John O’Toole: I was wondering if I could have unanimous consent for 10 minutes for the response, just a brief extension. Would that be unanimous consent?

Interjection: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You’re out of luck.

Mr. John O’Toole: Okay. Well, look, I’ll just thank the member from Peterborough, who’s a good friend of mine—he’s now more advanced; he’s the Minister of Agriculture—the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, who is always eloquent and informed, I would say; the member from Davenport, a strong advocate; as well as the Minister of the Environment.

Now, the Minister of the Environment—I did listen closely. I was expecting, in consumer protection, that he might cancel the Drive Clean program today, here and now. I might have thought that. That would protect the consumers of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a cash grab. What they’re doing, it’s a cash grab, though. No, it’s clear that the program—the Auditor General—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Look, I know I’ve struck a nerve. I know that. I’ve touched a sensitive nerve.

The other thing I thought the Minister of the Environment might have talked about was cancelling the transformer station in my riding. He knows that I’ve been advocating for months on this.

Interjection: This has nothing to do with the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, the bill is consumer protection. I think the taxpayers of Ontario need the protection. That’s why Tim Hudak and our party are always asking questions that are defending the taxpayers of Ontario. They simply can’t afford to live in Ontario anymore. That’s part of it.

But in fairness to this bill, in conclusion, I would say there is clarity in a couple of them. One of them is the real estate brokers act. I would suggest, for example, a house today sells for $500,000—I’ve never lived in a house like that, of course; a more modest home would be more in line. But let’s say there was a million-dollar home. A $50,000 commission? How about a straight cash deal where I say, “Look, I’ll give you 10 grand to sell the house”? That is permitted in this bill.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, look, I say in business, and this is my advice to the pages, always look for the best deal.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to stand on behalf of the residents of Hamilton Mountain and speak to this bill. I think it’s an important bill. I think that we definitely have a lot of work to do in this province in protecting our consumers, because they are the taxpayers of this province, and they’re constantly dishing out of their pockets on a regular basis. When they have things come across their plates that they just can’t control in life, they definitely need some help. Hopefully, this bill will move those things forward.

I have to say the bill definitely doesn’t go far enough, but it will get my support in the hopes that we can get it to committee to make sure that we can make some changes to it.

This bill deals with collection agencies, and they’ve become a big problem. You can actually watch them on TV these days. They give out a phone number and say, “If you’re in trouble, call this number, and we’ll loan you the money.” Well, that doesn’t really give people an opportunity to read a contract. Unfortunately, that’s another big problem: People don’t read all the way through a contract to see what is actually in the fine print.

But when you have that easy access to just pick up the phone and say, “I need a loan,” then having that money deposited directly into your account—they’re also withdrawing directly from your account at the same time to make sure that they get that collection. It’s putting people further and further behind, which is an absolute disgrace.

Collection agencies also want upfront fees. If I’m in trouble and I’m behind on money, how am I possibly going to pay an upfront fee? That’s again going to put me further in debt. That’s a big concern from us. We need to make sure that bills like this are prohibiting things like that.

Cancelling an agreement without reason within a 10-day period after receiving a copy of the agreement: That is a good provision that would, I’m sure, help a lot of folks. But it also makes me question, if we’re cancelling the agreement within a 10-day period, are they getting their money for that loan within that 10-day period, or do they have to wait for it? I’m not sure if we’re going to cancel an agreement after I’ve already been given the loan. That’s something that’s going to have to be looked at.

It would prohibit misleading sales practices and advertising—absolutely important. Like I said, when it came to the commercials that are rapidly happening across this province with fancy-dancy songs leading people—they’re going to save the day for them and make sure they get that money they need.

If companies fail to follow these new rules, the new legislation would enable the revocation of their mandatory licences. I think that’s absolutely important. We know that there are collection agencies out there that are getting your money up front. There’s not even necessarily the fact that your problems are going to be resolved, so there’s no assurance that what you’re paying for is actually going to happen. We need to make sure that that’s taken care of.

Water heaters:

Schedule 2 attempts to curb aggressive door-to-door water heater rental sales tactics. Again, it’s doubling the existing 10-day cooling-off period to 20 days for water heaters, which provides consumers with more time to consider their decision. That’s an absolutely great idea. But I hope that I don’t need a water heater in a really big hurry and have to wait 20 days, so I’m interested in hearing how that would work out.

Banning delivery and installation of water heaters during the 20-day cooling period: If I am in need of a water heater within 20 days, I don’t think I’m going to get it under these new provisions. Hopefully, there will be some emergency timelines in there to make sure that it’s getting us through that.

Allowing rules requiring companies to confirm sales by making scripted and recorded telephone calls to the consumer, and that key contract terms are disclosed and clear, in easy-to-understand language: I think that’s absolutely important. When we’re dealing with door-to-door salesmen, they can be very aggressive on the door. I know, myself, I’ve pushed people off my doorstep pretty quickly, or tried pretty quickly. It didn’t quite happen. He was pretty aggressive. He just kept coming back at me with different reasons of energy, and that’s exactly what it was about. It wasn’t about a water heater; it was about energy.

Something that people are very concerned about in this province is the high cost of hydro rates, so when someone is coming to you and saying, “It’s going to be a 5% discount on your hydro, and we’re going to make sure that your bills are lower”—and I’ve heard it from several other members through this debate, about the cost of energy and door-to-door people trying to convince you. You know, they do convince our vulnerable residents, people with language barriers, our seniors to sign on to these contracts, and then people are stuck and they’re not able to get out.

I know, myself, when I was working with a city councillor, how many people had called me and said, “I’m paying energy—my hydro has gone up to $350,” and here they had signed a contract, not realizing, thinking that their hydro was going to be lower. Thankfully, some of those folks were seniors and I was able to get them out of those contracts. But we have people with language barriers who just don’t fall under that criteria, and they’re stuck. So we need to make sure that we’re protecting our folks when it comes to these door-to-door salesmen.

I also think that it’s really important that we’re confirming these sales through a phone process, so that people are aware and they’re prepared that somebody is going to be knocking on their door, making that appointment, so that people at least can think about what these folks are coming to visit them about.

Making sure that there is a scripted and recorded telephone call to that customer is really important, so that we are clear, when the person is showing up at our door, that we know that the exact terms of what they’re coming to visit us for are there. That’s a really important thing.

Water heaters: The ministry received more than 3,200 written complaints and inquiries about door-to-door water heater people in 2012, making this the second-largest source of consumer complaints in the province. That’s absolutely disconcerting, that people in this province are facing this. I would like to see numbers of how many complaints actually went forward with energy people on our doorsteps. I really hope, when this goes to committee, that we are looking at other industries that need to be included in this and not just water heaters, because we know that it’s happening with many other industries.

I think that having a consumer advocate in this province would absolutely benefit people, and it would help with language barriers. It would help with our seniors. It would give people an avenue of where to take their complaints to, because people just don’t know. I know that our offices are inundated with these types of calls, and without this proper legislation, we’re not quite sure what to do with them either. We call their offices, we advocate, we do our darnedest to try to get people out of these contracts, but they’re just not interested. They’re more interested in the money that they’re receiving.

Having a consumer advocate would give that avenue of a voice and where to go, because we know that going through legal aid services and trying to go that route is time-consuming. It’s backlogging our court systems, and that’s really where it shouldn’t be—maybe as the final stage. But up until that point, having somebody there to advocate on behalf of folks is absolutely vital.

I’m not sure if I mentioned already that I was contacted by one of our city councillors in Hamilton and was told that within the next two years, we would have a 33% increase to our hydro rates. I think this is something that we need to be looking at. I know that it’s a little bit off-topic here, but it’s in the benefit of our consumers, in the benefit of our taxpayers in this province. It’s something that seriously needs to be looked at.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her comments.

I’m happy to have a couple of minutes today to speak briefly on Bill 55, the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, and thank Minister MacCharles, our Minister of Consumer Services, for bringing this piece forward.

Speaker, like most people in the Legislature, I think all of us—certainly me, in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan—our constituency offices are likely the best place where we as members in this assembly can get the sense and the feel for what issues are of importance, what issues are percolating from the ground up and becoming very serious in our local communities, and issues related to consumer protection are at the forefront of this.

After being elected in 2003, I remember when very early on we began to see issues related to consumer protection walking in the door. I have to give a nod to a couple of my staff in my constituency office, Sharla Knapton and Karen O’Connor, who have worked diligently over the years. I would suggest we have been able to help, in a very large way, many—unfortunately, primarily our seniors—who have been affected by these issues, where these very aggressive door-to-door salesmen are knocking on their doors and creating a lot of heartache.

The bill deals with not just the door-to-door sales piece, although that is primarily the focus. It also deals with debt settlement services. It deals with real estate, consumer protections, phantom offers, and it deals with à la carte services. So it is really progressive, and it really is necessary.

I think the first time that anybody in the Legislature did anything on this issue, it was a former member of ours, a Liberal member, David Ramsay, who’s no longer with us. David retired in the last election. I remember David introducing a private member’s bill some five or six years ago, which I really think began the momentum in terms of us on the government side getting more done to protect our seniors when it comes to consumer protection issues related to very aggressive door-to-door salespeople.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m pleased to rise to comment on the comments made by the member from Hamilton Mountain. No question, there needs to be some legislation for consumer protection.

One of the problems we have with this bill is the 20-day cooling-off period. Many times that’s warranted, but I can’t help but think of the person who has a problem with a hot water heater and needs it done tomorrow. I think there need to be some amendments brought in that would allow that to happen without the installer taking on 100% of the risk. Sometimes people install things because they need them today, and I think this bill has to reflect that—without having to go back to the original installer if they choose not to.

As well, we have some issues with the cancellation of existing agreements. That hasn’t been dealt with. We see that many of the complaints that come in were actually of that nature, where people called, after a long-term contract, having problems getting out of it—in many cases, what seems to be maybe bogus damage fees. After 20 years, you’re going to throw these things out, so why do you charge for a scratch on the side of it?

We’re hoping to get this back to committee.

When we talk about the debt settlement—still, some of these agencies that are supposedly on your side are taking commissions back from the debtors. I think we have to look at some of the groups. I think if that’s going to happen, the consumer has to know and he has to approve it. It’s one thing for the person to be making the fees up front, but if he’s also hired by somebody, he’s going to get fees from the person that he’s supposed to be working for. You have wonder about that.

Anyway, we’re looking forward to getting this to committee and making some changes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m pleased to rise again and talk to the bill that we’re looking at, protecting our consumers. I want to thank the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan. He reminded me of something that we should all do here as elected representatives: to recognize our staff back home, and also in our offices that we have here, because they’re the ones who actually deal with the face-to-face interactions.

They’re the ones who are not only social workers, psychologists, a vast resource of experience; they are extremely important to each and every one of us as far as us doing our own functioning here in our offices. I want to send my thank you to my staff, who are Cindy Restoule, Cindy Haddow—who is new to my team—along with Grant Buck, and my executive assistance who I have here, Claire Prashaw. They do amazing work. They are so compassionate and empathetic when they listen to individuals—and the importance of the work that they do, which is consumer protection.

This is a great step forward, and I look forward to having those discussions over in committee. Again, I need to stress the fact that not everybody in this industry needs to be painted with the same paintbrush. However, when you’re looking at an industry where you have over 3,200 complaints, there’s a problem. We need to address that problem. These steps are small measures to getting us there.

Once we get into committee, maybe we can take that greater step in order to assist our seniors and assist our community members so that they don’t have to hide in their houses with embarrassment because they’ve been taken advantage of, or they don’t have to feel so vulnerable when it’s time, when the bills are racked up, and they have that ultimate opportunity to pay into something where they’re going to eliminate a lot of your debts, and then they find out that they’re in a bigger hole than they were. I’m going to enjoy listening to the debate as we talk about this, because it will definitely benefit consumers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Again, I think the address was a most appropriate address dealing with many of the challenges all of us face. I’ve heard from a couple of members now, on the opposite side: the member for Cornwall and the member for Manitoulin—I know the ridings have longer names than that. Both talk about committee and how important it is to get a good analysis at committee. The committee might decide to have people come in and make presentations or comments; they would certainly want to receive their written comments. They may want to look at it on a clause-by-clause basis, which normally happens. But to do so, we have to get these bills to committee.

I understand, when there’s a very contentious bill where there’s significant opposition, that a debate is going to be somewhat prolonged, and it may well be. I think, actually, if the House is working as it should, on the very contentious bills that come before the House, there should be a full debate that takes place. Where there is a bill of this nature, where there appears to be a fairly good consensus on at least the principle of the bill, I think it’s important to move this to committee at the earliest opportunity, having heard what some of the members have had to say.

There’s a feeling out there that governments in a minority Parliament should be more responsive to the opposition in particular, and the opposition should be more responsible than perhaps you have to be when there’s a majority government. So I encourage members of the Legislature to permit this bill to go to committee for the kind of detailed analysis that it requires so that ultimately this bill, if the committee deems it appropriate, would come back either in its present form or in amended form for consideration at third reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for Hamilton Mountain has two minutes.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to thank the members from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin and the Minister of the Environment for their comments. This really is an interesting debate. It’s important that we’re talking about what consumers are facing in this province and legislation like this. I congratulate the minister of consumer affairs for bringing this forward. Yes, we think that it needs to be stronger, but like what was said previously, those are things that happen within the committee portion.

Part of what I didn’t get to speak about was the fact that we need to ensure that consumers are educated, that there is literature, that there are radio ads, that there are different kinds of things through the media happening that allow consumers to see what’s happening in the community that would maybe make them think twice about signing those kinds of contracts and making sure that those outlets are done in other languages so that everybody can understand what it is that we’re talking about.

When I think about the pages in this House, I think, when they’re in school, are they taught these kinds of things? So maybe put that into part of our education curriculum when we’re learning about how to deal with our money and all of that—I believe that happens in grade 6, when we’re looking at those kinds of things in school—that this is part of that discussion, making sure that consumers really know what they’re signing before they sign a contract and making sure they read a contract before they sign it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I think it’s very important, as was mentioned by a number of speakers previously, that this is a bill that I think all parties in the House would support the principle of. Who in this House would object to providing consumer protection as best we can, not only to our vulnerable seniors and others, but to everyone in the province? At the same time, I think it’s very important that, when you’re doing that, we do it in such a way that it will get—what should we say?—the best bang for the buck.

We don’t want to be like the door-to-door salesmen and sell this quickly because it sounds good today, but all of a sudden, tomorrow we find out it really wasn’t to everyone’s benefit or for the benefit of society in general.

So I just wanted to go through it. As I mentioned, in the title of the bill, it’s quite clear that there are three main areas that are dealt with. Mr. Speaker, the best way to go through the act and what it does is to look at the schedules. In this case, there are three schedules. The first one is the Collection Agencies Act; the second one is of course the Consumer Protection Act, 2002; and the last one is the real estate brokers.

Now, on the first one, the Collection Agencies Act, I think it’s important to recognize that, of course, that’s to set standards for people who have money out owed to them, and then they hire people to collect that money. Mr. Speaker, it is all over the map as to how that’s done.

To speak of an example, I want to say that I had the misfortune—I guess that’s what you would call it—to be parked in a parking lot the other day, and I was there longer than I expected to be. When I got back, someone else had been to my car before I got there, and there was this little blue ticket on my window. I found it kind of interesting because it was not a municipal parking lot; it was a privately owned parking lot. So I looked at the little blue piece of paper as to what it was, and of course, it was a ticket.

But the ticket in that type of parking lot does not have a place where you can object to the ticket or give an explanation or even suggest that maybe it was done improperly. It says on the ticket that, under the contract that I’ve agreed to when I parked there, they have the power to either tow it or give me a ticket, and that I have an obligation to pay the ticket or pay for the towing if they did that. It doesn’t leave anything in between.

I have been looking for some time now to find this contract that they have with me, where I would have seen that prior to having entered into this contract with them. I guess we’d call it door-to-door—only it was my car door—sales that they put this on, and I find out that there isn’t any place I can deal with that. So now I have a choice: It says I can send in my money, or they will turn it over to a collection agency to come and get it.

I don’t know exactly how it’s going to work yet, because I’m waiting for the individual, but the individual, as far as I know, does not know who I am. So it may be a little bit more difficult for them than they had first envisioned. But this is a system where I have been entered into a contract with someone, having no knowledge of having entered into that.

I’m kind of having a bit of fun with this myself, Mr. Speaker, but there are a lot of people who get caught up in that type of a contract, when people go door to door, who have no idea, at the end of it, when it’s over and the salesman leaves, how it happened and how they got into this. So I think it’s very important, as the bill does it, to mandate that all contracts be in writing so everyone can actually see the contract that they’ve entered into, not suppose that the seller knows what they’re talking about, and also to set caps for doing the collection.

Obviously, in almost all cases where a debtor hires someone to do the collection, the cost of that collection is on top of the money that they’re collecting. That would have a cap on it.

Also, I think it’s important to recognize the cooling-off period in these contracts, that in fact there is an opportunity to change one’s mind. Having said that, putting deadlines on that cooling-off period—I think we need to look further and find ways to deal with that, because maybe it was a misunderstanding. I think it’s unreasonable to accept that someone who is vulnerable at the door and got talked into a contract—the chances of them in the first 10 days realizing that they were taken advantage of are quite minimal, and I think we need to find a way to deal with that.

I had many, many calls a number of years ago from people who had energy sales coming to the door. In fact, it wasn’t until they got the first or second bill from the new supplier that they realized they had entered into a long-term deal with that contractor and there was no way out. I think that becomes very important.

The second thing is the water heater issue. We’ve heard a lot of talk about that. That is, of course, in the Consumer Protection Act. I too have a personal experience with that, having had a rental water heater for some 20 years and then deciding that I wanted a larger one. I did some research and found that I could purchase one for what I had paid for the rental one in about five years. One has to wonder whether that contract was a legitimate, good deal when I signed it.

I know why I did it when I did it, and I’m sure that’s the truth with a whole lot of people, but I think there needs to be a much better regime in place to make sure that everybody understands what it is they’re paying for and what it is they’re getting. I think it was mentioned by my colleague from Stormont–Dundas–East Glengarry—I think that’s the right riding.

Interjection: South.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Having the 20-day cooling-off period, that you cannot have it installed for the first 20 days after you buy it when you have made a new deal and your water heater is not working: I think we need to be able to make an arrangement where I can have hot water as quickly as possible. One needs to make sure that there’s an opening in there for that.

It’s also important that the process of how you get out of the contract is clear. As I mentioned, I had a hot water heater rental. When I called the company up and said that I no longer wanted it, they asked me if it was disconnected yet. I said, “No, not yet, but it will be this afternoon.”

They said, “Well, give us a call when you no longer need it.”

“Well, that will be in about three hours.”

“Well, could you call us back?”

So we unhooked it, we put the new one on that I had purchased, and then when I called them back, they said, “Have you got a way of disposing of it?” They had no intention of picking it up. They were just telling me that I had to unhook it so I wouldn’t be using their hot water heater, which they were going to throw away anyway, without paying them for it. I think we need to have clearer guidelines for how we deal with those.

The other thing I just quickly want to wrap up with is the real estate broker’s licence. I totally agree with the approach that the real estate companies must be open and accountable and transparent with offers that are being made and offers that you’re bidding against. I think it’s also important that if it’s all open and transparent, they are able to set their prices based on a mutual agreement between the seller and the realtor. It makes great sense. Why should it be all based on a percentage of the sale price or based on a flat fee?

Why could we not have that choice between how a buyer and seller are wishing to make a deal, providing it’s all transparent and they’re all following the same rules?

I think it’s very important to make the issue about all following the same rules, Mr. Speaker, because I think there are challenges in the industry as to people not charging appropriately. But if everybody was doing it right, they would all be doing it the same way, and that’s not happening. I think everyone wants regulations that give everyone the opportunity to do their business in the same manner.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn it over to someone else. I see my time has almost expired; so much left to say and so little time to do it in. I will just sit down and ponder how I will get that done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m happy to add my comments to the debate for the member from Oxford, who actually touched on something; he triggered a memory in my mind.

In our household—at least, in my household—there is one Premier. I love her to death, and I always listen to what she has to say. However, we do, on occasions, have to have committee discussions.

It was not too long ago, when we actually just relocated to Elliot Lake, where an aggressive person presented themselves at our door, trying to sell, and was successful in aggressively selling my wife into signing into a contract. We sat down, and I was quite fortunate to have that discussion with her two days before that 10-day period. I was very fortunate to get a hold—it’s not an easy fix, to try and change or to get out of these contracts once you’ve put your name on the dotted line. It’s not that easy. They find various ways of not getting hold of you, not returning your call.

However, I was successful, because I’m somewhat of an aggressive person myself. When I’ve got my mind set on something and I want to fix it, we go ahead and we do it. I was happy to say that I was successful in fixing this.

But it’s the whole problem that happened at home, where my partner, my love of my life, felt frustrated because somebody came to her door and took advantage of a situation that we were in.

Now, that was my household. Imagine every other household that goes through this. Imagine that senior, where her son or her daughter comes up to her and tells her, “Mom, what are you doing?” That is something that impacts them for a very great period of time, and it’s difficult for people to go through that.

I’ve spoken about this on three occasions this morning, but that is something that we really need to look at. It is so important that we really look at consumer protection for seniors and all of our communities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I must say, I enjoyed the comments from the member from Oxford this morning. I think we clearly see a consensus building in this House on all sides on Bill 55 and to provide stronger consumer protection.

As I said previously, during the last two years I was a city councillor in Peterborough, it was nonstop, getting calls from seniors with these fast-talking operators coming to their front doors and really putting on a terrible amount of pressure to sign these contracts.

If I was providing some advice today, I would say to the people of Ontario, “Deal with your publicly owned municipal utility,” because many of them do have water heater programs. They are municipally owned; they’re publicly owned. They are doing their business in the best interests of their customers, and often they have very informative programs to help to make a thoughtful decision before you sign on the bottom line. That is with your municipally owned utilities.

I share what the member from Oxford said. You enter these contracts. They give you 10 or 12 pieces of paper. Inevitably, if you want to cancel—they have a 1-800 number on the top. Try that 1-800 number, Mr. Speaker; I have, on behalf of constituents. The 1-800 person—they are in Timbuktu, somewhere around the world, and you’re trying to explain to that person in another part of the world how you’re trying to cancel a contract for somebody living in Woodstock or Elliot Lake or Thunder Bay or Cobourg, and it’s virtually impossible, because they don’t understand the situation—if in fact they even answer that 1-800 number, and that’s a bit of a long shot to happen, for them to even do that.

There’s a consensus building. This legislation will be good for consumers in Ontario. We’ve got to get it to committee and get it to help our citizens.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s a pleasure to get up and rise to discuss, certainly, the informed comments from our member from Oxford.

There are many issues. I’m glad to hear the Minister of Rural Affairs talk about one of the problems we see with this bill, that there’s no clear legislation around the cancellation of existing contracts. That’s one thing that’s lost in this bill and one of the major sources of complaints that I understand we’re receiving. When somebody chooses to purchase a water heater, the procedure to get out of an old contract—which may be very old, and the equipment may be paid for—is very hard to do.

That’s the other thing: There’s nothing that talks about the remaining costs of the previous contract. These units, I understand, cost about $800. You’re paying for them in just a couple of years. I know there are installation costs. But when you go to get out of it, there’s nothing that talks about what your remaining fees are and what’s the length of the contract.

I think there needs to be, just like there was in the cellphone regulations that the CRTC put out yesterday—very comprehensive—some talk about that, so that you know, when you sign a contract, what you are owing the previous company, if anything.

Then, as he talked about, the 1-800 number: Does it work? Can you get out of the contract, or is it one of these things that we understand it takes three or four months to get out of?

Certainly, some things in the debt settlement—or the amendments that we need to look at—and we’ve been hearing from our groups as well, the other issue of the debt settlement: Again, we’ve talked about some of the cancelling services. They’re actually receiving funds from the debtors themselves—or the loaners themselves—so we need to make sure that that’s clear to the people. We don’t think it’s fair that the person who is having trouble, where there’s great duress, is having to pay a commission and finding out afterwards it was being paid—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m also commenting, of course, on the member from Oxford’s comments a little earlier.

I have to say, I mean, the bill does take a small step forward for consumer rights. It’s always a good thing. You’re looking at somebody, for example, who signed up to a lifetime membership in Vic Tanny’s. Anybody remember Vic Tanny’s here? You’re old if you do. Vic Tanny’s died a long time ago, but I’m still alive, and I don’t get the use of that.

Yes, it’s very important to read contracts. Yes, it’s very important to have consumer protections. I would like to suggest to the government that there are two huge areas where consumers are far from being protected. One was addressed yesterday in the member from Welland’s bill, which was talking about rent controls not being extended to anybody who lives in a building that was built after 1991. That’s not consumer protection.

I’d also like to point out to the government about payday lenders. If you’ve ever borrowed money from a payday lender, you will know that it’s actually legalized usury; that’s what it is. Payday lenders charge over 500% interest. We should move against that. Government moved very slightly; it still hasn’t helped the vast majority of Ontarians. Payday lenders are illegal in Quebec; they should be illegal here. That’s a huge area of consumer protection that this government hasn’t looked at.

So, as far as it goes, yes, it’s a good thing. Would I strengthen it? Yes, I’d strengthen it by passing two bills that have been tabled before this House. Payday lending: Make them illegal or at least force them to charge no more than 35% interest. They’d all go out of business at that. Rent control: Why do we have it for people who live in buildings that were built before 1991 and not after 1991? This isn’t fair.

To the member from Oxford for his comments: Absolutely, if we could strengthen this bill to include those other two bills at committee, I would say, “Way to go.” But unfortunately, we can’t. As far as it goes, it’s not bad, but let’s go far, far farther.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oxford has two minutes.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, the Minister of Rural Affairs, and the members from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry and Parkdale–High Park for their kind comments.

I do want to speak to just a couple of points from their presentations. The cancellation fees: When you lease a car, they give you a paper and you sign on for how much you have to put up front to get the car, and then you get so much a month, and then if you want the residual at the end of the lease, there’s a price on there, what it would cost you to do that; or if you walk away in between, it will calculate exactly how much you’re supposed to pay for that. It would seem to me that this could be done for water heaters too, to set parameters of where you start from, where you’re going and how you’re getting there, and then what you do at the end of it.

I think with rentals, if there’s a cost to get out, there should be a length of time after which you should be able to renegotiate at a lower price if the old heater is still running, because you’ve paid for it. So I think that needs to be addressed in order to have consumer protection.

The other thing I wonder about is why it is we have got in such—what shall we say?—a dilemma with hot water heaters when the furnace in the same house is part of the house and there are no lease agreements. I’ve never had a constituent call my office yet to talk about the lease agreement on the furnace and how they were having trouble with it. I wonder how we got into this with the water heater. I know in my case it was that originally, when the rental units started, you rented the unit with the power to run it for so much a month.

Then when they disconnected the power directly to it and put it on the meter, they kept the rental going. One might want to have a look at that as to how that rental agreement should be structured.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’d like to introduce, from Burlington, page Eric Orosz’s mother, Heather Weaver-Orosz; his father, Michael Orosz; and his friend from school, his classmate Daniel Hoogsteen. The member from Niagara Falls will be introducing the grandparents.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce Emily Wright, a co-op student from Ryerson. It’s her last week in my office. Thank you, Emily.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m really pleased to introduce the grandparents of our page Eric, who is also the page captain. The grandparents, who have driven all the way from the beautiful city of Niagara Falls, are Joe and Marlene Orosz. Joe, welcome. I assured them that their grandson is doing an excellent job here at Queen’s Park. In spite of the politicians, he’s doing a great job.

Mr. John O’Toole: There’s a very good friend of mine in the gallery: Bernie Condon, a former councillor in the Peterborough county area, as well as a former General Motors manager.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, I invite the entire assembly to join me in welcoming a volunteer in my campaign, from my office: Mehma Kaur.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to introduce the parents of my executive assistant, Kim Howson. Calvin and Karen Howson are here with us from Georgetown.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce, from my constituency office, Bonnie Harrison, in the members’ gallery; and with her is Erika Robson, my co-op student who is doing a fabulous job in the constituency office. We welcome them to Queen’s Park. My executive assistant from the office just a few floors above, John Spink, is with them, too.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to introduce Beth Gorbet and Wendy Gibson, from the Canadian Association of Natural Nutritional Practitioners. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a number of members of the Oakville Provincial Youth Advisory Committee here today. From Abbey Park High School, we’ve got Brayden Ross and Aish Abid; from St. Thomas Aquinas, we’ve got Maameyaa Brako, Chantelle Colangelo, Colm Human and Nathan Greene; from St. Mildred’s-Lightbourn School, we’ve got Ankita Sharma and Firoza Dodhi; from Oakville Trafalgar, we have Alex Glista, a former page; and from my office, we’ve got Grace Johnson and Ellen Kuschnik. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Linda Zimmerman and Richard Lewis, who were the winning bidders for a day at Queen’s Park, from an event put on by the Stratford Shriners’ club. Welcome to the assembly.

Hon. Jeff Leal: The Premier introduced the parents of Kim Howson, Calvin and Karen, but I do have a connection. Calvin and I grew up together in the south end of Peterborough, and we attended high school together, so we go back a long way. I’m really happy that they’re with us today.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to introduce a really good friend of mine from Waterdown. Irene Woods is here. Irene, welcome.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome Marguerite Marlin, a PhD student at McMaster University—but a resident of Ottawa Centre—who is visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the Minister of Finance, for Melanie Forbes: Her mother, Ana Rendeiro, and sister Kayla Forbes are visiting Melanie to watch the good job that she does. Welcome.

I’d also like to introduce, in the Speaker’s gallery, former MPP Dave Neumann, from Brantford, in the 34th Parliament. Welcome.

He was also my high school grade 12 world politics teacher. I just thought I’d let you know that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I actually passed his course. I just thought I’d let you know that. Okay.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All at the same time: “Now we know,” right?

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 2012-13. Members will find these copies in their desks.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the Premier. In the privacy commissioner’s report released this morning, the truth about the culture of the Liberal Party of Ontario was finally revealed. Our suspicions have finally been confirmed. Government business is no longer the business of the people, and it hasn’t been since that party has been in power. Crucial decisions about how public money will be spent are being made in secret, in the realm of private emails and BlackBerrys, only to be wiped from drives and computer memory, never to be seen again.

Premier, this is your party’s MO. There is the public realm where we’re told the government is operating; then there’s the secret world, the world hidden from the opposition, the media and the public eye.

The report is only the tip of the iceberg, Premier. People are breaking the law. Let the people pass judgment on your party’s record where billions are spent and no one is to blame. Will you call an election now, and let the people finally pass judgment on your scandal-plagued government?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to thank the member for the question, and I want to thank Dr.—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will withdraw.

Mr. Steve Clark: Withdraw.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank Dr. Cavoukian for her report. We’re examining her recommendations very closely.

But I want to be clear that from the moment that I have been in this office, we have been following all of the rules in terms of retention of documents. We have trained staff. We have made it clear what the expectations are, and we have taken additional steps to make sure that staff are aware of their responsibilities.

As I said, we’ve improved the orientation for new employees, and we have put in place mandatory training so that everyone knows exactly what the rules are. I would have it no other way, and we will continue in that vein, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Back to the Premier: So badly did your government want to obfuscate the fact that they have been only acting in the interests of the Liberal Party that they have deleted countless emails. Now, apparently, Mr. Speaker, the files that existed on government computers have been transferred to USB memory sticks to avoid any scrutiny. The privacy commissioner found that your party’s protocol was to transfer files off of computers and, “Once this transfer is complete, original records should then be erased in such a way that they cannot be recreated....” This protocol, Premier, is against the law.

For months, the Liberals have been saying they have acted in good faith, that they’ve been acting to protect the public interest. Sadly, a great deal of these records are irretrievably lost. Will you do what you can to salvage what little is left of your reputation and immediately provide us with any and all remaining documents on secret drives and secret USB keys?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me be clear: The practice in my office and in the office of my caucus and my cabinet—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to go right to the members’ ridings. The member from Renfrew, come to order. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Our practice has been to follow the rules. We have done that from the moment we came into office.

I just want to read what the privacy commissioner said in her report: “Throughout this entire investigation, my office received the full cooperation of all parties involved, including the Premier’s office, Cabinet Office, the MGS.…”

We have been following the rules. We have made it very clear that the practices that will be in place, that have been in place since we came into this role, have been in full compliance with the rules, and we will continue in that manner.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: This falls directly on this Premier and this government. In the report released earlier today, the commissioner speaks of an “inappropriate deletion of emails by the former Premier’s staff as part of the transition to the new Premier.” I quote again from the privacy commissioner: “It is difficult to escape that conclusion.”

You hand-picked your staff, Premier. Your Dalton-McGuinty-era two-email-account staff have made a decision to delete emails to avoid incrimination and have blurred the line between government and Liberal partisan interests to the point where it doesn’t exist. The privacy commissioner was clear: Your government broke the law, and the private Gmail accounts we uncovered last week further prove the point.

So we ask again, will you hand over the USB keys full of the information you tried to bury from Ontarians, or will this only end when the OPP break down the doors of the Premier’s office and confiscate—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the tenor of the question notwithstanding, let me repeat that since February we have been committed to making changes to make sure that all staff in all of our offices are complying with the rules. We have provided 130,000 documents to the justice committee, 30,000 documents to the justice committee from my office. We will continue to comply with the requests, and we will continue to make sure that all of the rules are followed by my office and across government.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is also for the Premier. Commissioner Cavoukian has stated in her report that in early 2013, staff in the former Premier’s office had approached the secretary of cabinet about how to permanently delete emails and other electronic documents such as attached briefing notes. We also found that members of your staff have been using private, non-FOIable email accounts to communicate regarding government business. Premier, the buck stops with you. People in the former Premier’s office, people who work for you, people who work in this government, are breaking the law.

It is not good enough to say it won’t happen again. Who will be facing criminal charges, and who will be resigning?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think I’ve addressed the issues around Dr. Cavoukian’s report, and we will continue to work with the privacy commissioner. As I’ve said, we have taken extraordinary steps to make sure that all of our staff are following the rules.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of email, let me be very clear: Matters not related to government business should not be dealt with on government computers. Government business is obviously susceptible to and subject to freedom of information.

What I have said in public is that where private emails might be used is in examples like in a period of transition, when there were many volunteers who were working on their private emails; new employees who might not have had a government account; certain transitory records; certain legislative deliberations; and instances of political partisan activity that should not be using government accounts. But, Mr. Speaker, all of those rules will be followed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

You have done everything you can to prevent us from getting to the bottom of this scandal. We know that your words are completely disingenuous. Will you now admit—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not parliamentary. Withdraw, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

A judicial inquiry, Premier, is the only thing that will get to the bottom of your scandal. Will you now simply admit that your thirst to cling to power has corrupted you beyond repair?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. While I—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): While I’m asking for attention, I’m not getting it.

While I did not find that exactly unparliamentary, I’m going to ask all members, because of the heatedness of this particular nature, to guard your words and race to the top. I’m just going to leave it at that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need the editorials after the Speaker makes a ruling.

Premier, please answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to address the personal motivation that the member opposite seems to be attacking. My personal motivation for being in this place is to make sure that we deliver the services that are necessary to the lives of people in this province. I’m only here because I believe in publicly funded education, I believe in public health care, and I believe in making sure that government delivers the services that people need.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s why I’m here. I’m in the leadership because I believe that we have a lot of work to do in terms of continuing to deliver those services and continuing to strengthen them.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate Dr. Cavoukian’s report. We are working to make sure that every law is followed. Since February we have taken measures to make sure that those are in place.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s a lovely story, Premier, but you’re the boss and the buck stops with you. You are responsible. Thirteen million Ontarians deserve better than this. The commissioner has made it very clear: You broke the law. Staff were taught how to break the law and then went on to break the law, all because your government is addicted to power. The stain of this scandal is on you and every member of your government.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I actually stood to ask the government to come to order, and now I end up having to ask you to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll wait.

Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The team has got me excited.

Member, finish your question, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: As I said, the stain is on you and every member of your government. The people of Ontario no longer have confidence in you. Even the third party must be reconsidering their decision to prop you up.

Will you simply admit you are no longer fit to govern this province as you have lied to the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

I know the member is ready. Withdraw, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The privacy commissioner, Dr. Cavoukian, has given us some recommendations on practices that need to be changed. When we came into office, when I took on this role, we put in place rules. We made it clear. We put training in place to make it clear what the rules were and to make sure that all staff followed those rules. We will continue in that manner.

I have done everything in my power since I came into this role to make sure that the information that was asked for was provided, to open up a process to make sure that the questions could be asked and information could be received. We will continue in that manner.

As I said, we are working with the privacy commissioner’s office. She has appreciated how we have worked with her. We will continue to do that as we look at the recommendations, and I appreciate that she has made the recommendations.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier, and I think it’s a pretty obvious one. Does the Premier agree that it was wrong and likely illegal for senior Liberal political staff to actually destroy information about the gas plants?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been very clear what the practice is in my office, and I have been clear from the day that we came into office that all of the rules will be followed and the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I turned my head to look—stop the clock, please—I heard somebody say something unparliamentary, and I would offer the member an opportunity to withdraw, whoever that was. If not, I’ll be watching.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So, Mr. Speaker, my—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I recognize the former member for Mississippi Mills.

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So, Mr. Speaker, I’ve been—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I find it regrettable that some people have taken the moment to say things that they’re not, by convention, supposed to say.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And some people continue to talk while I’m trying to get attention.

Okay, wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Since February, we took steps to make sure that all political staff were aware of their responsibilities of what the rules were. That’s why we put training in place; that’s why we’ve changed the practices in the office.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner said that destroying information “undermines” key legislation as well as “transparency and accountability....”

Will the Premier tell Ontarians what the government was trying to hide when senior Liberal political staff were destroying information?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said a number of times, we have provided all of the documents that we have been asked for. My office has provided 30,000 documents—130,000 documents across government.

We are working to make sure that all of the information that’s being asked for is provided. We are following the rules in the office; we have put training in place. We will work with the privacy commissioner, as she has put forward some recommendations that we want to work on with her.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner said she has “trouble accepting that” deleting emails “was simply part of a benign attempt to efficiently manage one’s email accounts.” She’s raising serious questions.

Does the Premier really believe that when the Minister of Energy’s chief of staff, the former Premier’s chief of staff, his principal secretary and his energy adviser were destroying all of these documents, they were simply trying to keep their inboxes clean?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, Dr. Cavoukian has raised some serious concerns. She has put recommendations forward. We have taken proactive steps, since we’ve been here in February, to make sure that all the rules are being followed and information is available and is retained, and all of those protocols are in place.

We will continue to work with the privacy commissioner, because I think the recommendations that she has put forward are very important, and they come out of legitimate concerns that she has raised. So we will continue to work with her.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. When the Premier took control of the Liberal Party in January, the cancelled private power deals and the impending hearings were one of the key challenges that were facing her party. At the heart of that issue was whether documents were being hidden. Did the Premier ask any questions or raise any concerns at all—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Be seated, please. I’ll hold the question. Stop the clock, please.

The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will withdraw.

Mr. Bill Walker: Withdraw.

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

You put your question? Are you finished?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Did the Premier ask any questions or raise any concerns at all about emails being deleted in the Premier’s office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Let me remind the leader of the third party of what happened in terms of the gas plant situation when the new Premier took over—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Newmarket–Aurora, come to order; the member from Halton, come to order; and the member from Durham, come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: It was this Premier who offered a special committee to the opposition, which they rejected, and when they decided to go after a former member of the House, she worked to have the committee’s mandate broadened. It was this Premier who wrote to the Auditor General and asked him to look into the Oakville situation. It was this Premier who asked Liberal members of the committee to ask for a government-wide search for documents, which the opposition rejected. It has been under this Premier’s watch that we have seen 130,000 documents go to the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People were asking questions about missing emails long before this Premier took control of the Liberal Party. There were serious questions about senior Liberal staff deleting emails and destroying information, and the Liberal leader knew, or should have known, what was happening when she took over.

When the Premier was sworn in, did she ask any questions at all about why this information had been destroyed, or was it simply a case of, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?

Hon. John Milloy: There have been 130,000 documents that have been provided to the committee, including 30,000 from the Premier’s office.

In terms of the practices that are cited by the IPC in her report, the Premier has addressed that. She has talked about the measures this government has taken to make sure that we have tighter controls. She has also outlined—and I can inform the House that in my capacity as Minister of Government Services, I have asked this morning for a meeting with the IPC so that I can sit down with her and we can work together to make sure that we can strengthen our safeguards to make sure that this situation does not happen again and that rules and regulations are followed.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The commissioner reports that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that records were destroyed during the transition phase. Yet, as new leader of the Liberal Party, the Premier didn’t ask any questions or raise any issues. Why didn’t the Premier ask the basic questions that anyone who is genuinely concerned about missing documents would have asked?

Hon. John Milloy: We have a committee of the Legislature, which has been constituted to be called at the call of the Chair, meaning that it is up to the members themselves—of which they have a majority—on when it can meet. They can summon any witnesses they want. My understanding is, 33-plus witnesses have come forward, including the present Premier, the Minister of Energy and former Ministers of Energy. They have also been provided with 130,000 documents, including 30,000 from the Premier’s office.

The current Premier has gone to great lengths to be as open and transparent as possible on this issue. Again, we have charged a committee of this Legislature, which is completely unfettered, and allowed them to look into any aspect of this situation.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I’ve been surprised with your reaction to the release of a list of proposals on how to further pick the pockets of Ontarians to raise the money you need to balance your budget.

Here you are, a former bank executive, facing me, a former corporate executive. We’re had to ask our subordinates to cut costs. They’d complain but they’d do it: 10%, really difficult; 5%, tough but not impossible; 2% or 3% was a walk in the park.

Here we are talking about moving towards balance, and make no mistake, Minister: Talking about it is mostly what you people do. We discovered that you have a nickel-and-dime list aimed at grabbing more and pulling it out of the economy.

We have offered to assist with a select committee, but you were dismissive of wanting to find savings. If you had a list of new revenue tools, there should be a companion list asking ministries where they could cut costs, like we both had to do in our private sector lives. Is there such a memorandum, Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question. It gives me the opportunity to reaffirm the outstanding work that we are doing in controlling our spending, being disciplined and determined. That’s why our spending growth is less than 1% year over year. It’s why we’ve exceeded our targets for four years running by $21 billion. Last year alone, it was a $5-billion reduction in our deficit. We’ll continue to do that.

Of course we’ve reviewed and we’ve assessed all of the fees that are applicable to government, and we’ve rejected many of them that the member opposite makes reference to. We will continue to do our job. We look forward to the members opposite to support our budget as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’m beginning to get the idea that we in Ontario have seen Tweedledum and Tweedledee replaced by Frick and Frack. I’m beginning to think you haven’t got any bright ideas on how to move this province toward balance, maybe no ideas at all except grabbing all you can or settling with unions like OPSEU, only to have their leader laugh at you. I’m beginning to think you’d better fess up.

You may not like my party’s plan, but we’re the only party in this House that has advanced any plan at all. The third party wants whatever it wants, and you just give it to them. How is that constructive? And you wonder why we are not willing participants in your budget process. The answer is, because we don’t want to be your accomplices.

Minister, Ontarians want to know how much more you’re going to make them pay for your government’s spending habits. Because of you, Ontario is now the seventh-highest borrower in the world that isn’t actually a country.

Are you or aren’t you capable of balancing the budget by reducing costs? If not, will you—

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

Minister of Finance?

Interjections.

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

Before I start the clock, I’m getting a little anxious with some of the armchair quarterbacks who continually ask me to do somebody else’s job. I will do my job. What’s frustrating is that for those individuals who try to watch the clock for me and tell me how to do that, my record is about two seconds off in question period, and I check every day.

For those who claim that people are getting way too much time: Knock it off. For those who have decided that they know how to do it better here: Knock it off.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just referenced his plan. His plan doesn’t add up. It’s fraught with mistakes. Even the mathematics of his plan are incorrect, and we’ve stated that and we’ve shown it to them. Now they have the audacity to suggest that they have a better plan.

I can assure the member opposite that during my discussions and deliberations with bondholders and rating agencies, they are very satisfied with what it is that we are doing. Ontario is being well received because of the strong economic fundamentals that we have, because of the plan that we have to balance, and the methodic way in which we’re doing it.

The member opposite should know Ontario is the only province that has not only met those targets on an ongoing basis, but we’ve exceeded them when the others have not. We’ll continue on this path of being disciplined in our spending, and we’re going to do everything possible to increase our—

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

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Long before the Premier was sworn in as Liberal leader, I raised serious questions about emails that seemed to be missing from the Premier’s office. When the Premier became Liberal leader, did she raise any questions about what was missing and why?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to address this question, and it speaks to the issue that was raised by the leader as well.

I have said repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as I came into this office, we put in place protocols. I made sure that staff understood what the rules were. I did ask questions about what protocols were being followed, which is why there’s extra training that has been done. When new staff come in, they know what the rules are. We are following the rules.

We have turned over information, 30,000 documents from our office, and that has been all part of our commitment—my commitment, my personal commitment—to open up the process, to make sure that all of the information that was being asked for was received by the people who were asking for it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, you still haven’t answered that question. You’ve talked about what your office has done, but when you came to office, you didn’t investigate the destruction of emails, the absence of information, the inability to respond to a freedom of information request. Documents were destroyed and you didn’t seem to care. Why didn’t you ask the basic questions that anyone concerned about the facts would have asked?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I asked the questions about what our practice was going to be and how we were going to conduct our office and how we were going to open up the process. The government House leader has outlined what we did in terms of asking that there be a select committee put in place—which was rejected by the opposition—opening up the mandate of the justice committee, making sure that there was a forum for all the questions to be asked and answered.

We have worked with the privacy commissioner; we will continue to work with her. We have asked the Auditor General to look at both situations; he has, and is doing that. We are doing everything in our power to comply with the rules, to make sure that information is provided and to make sure that this is an open and transparent process going forward.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Phil McNeely: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, Ontario is a leader in clean energy. Thanks to our government’s investment, we’ve created 31,000 jobs and a resilient renewable energy sector across the province. I know that we’ve also been listening to municipalities to hear their ideas to improve how we site renewable energy projects and how we can better engage local communities from the beginning.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Energy: Could the minister please update the House on the steps our government is taking to improve the siting and procurement of renewable energy projects across Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. Our government is solidly committed to investing in renewable energy. It creates good jobs, eliminates dirty coal-fired generation and cleans up our air. We have listened to communities and mayors.

For large renewable projects, the Ontario Power Authority is creating a new bidding process where priority approval is given to projects that have prior municipal approval, making it extremely difficult for contracts to be awarded without an arrangement with the municipality. The new rules also empower and give to municipalities and other public entities extra power to engage as owners and partners in projects moving forward.

We are providing funding to small and medium-sized municipalities to create municipal energy plans, and we’re increasing property taxes on wind turbines to provide revenue to municipalities. Mr. Speaker—

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you to the Minister of Energy for that update. I know my constituents will be pleased to hear that our government remains committed to investing in clean, renewable energy. Our investments have helped build enough clean energy to power 900,000 homes.

As we move forward, these changes will help strengthen our green energy economy by bringing stability and predictability to the system. Providing communities with increased local control over the planning and siting of renewable energy projects is a responsible thing to do. It will not only ensure that communities have a voice, but it will make sure that all areas benefit from continued development.

Speaker, I know that there have been specific concerns in many of Ontario’s rural areas regarding renewable energy. Could the minister please update this House on what our government is doing to address the concerns of Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Minister of Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you to the member from Ottawa–Orléans for the question. Our government has proposed new rules for siting renewable energy projects that respect rural communities and give them a stronger voice. We have struck the right balance to provide what residents deserve, what municipalities want and what the industry needs to grow and to create jobs.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what some of our fine rural mayors are saying: “It’s good news for municipalities,” says Kingsville mayor Nelson Santos. “Absolutely, it’s a step forward,” says Leamington mayor John Paterson.

I will continue to work with rural communities across Ontario and my colleagues here at Queen’s Park to identify opportunities to further strengthen rural Ontario, because when rural Ontario succeeds, all Ontario is stronger.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, Ontario already has the highest processing fees in all of Canada for employers who want to hire skilled immigrants through the Provincial Nominee Program, yet according to your treasury board document, you want to increase these fees by yet another $500.

Minister, will you ensure that Ontario businesses, many of which are already facing significant obstacles to growth, will not be faced with another $500 fee hike?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member for the question. As the member knows, immigration is a shared responsibility between the provincial government and the federal government, and the temporary foreign worker agreement is an agreement between the federal government and provincial government.

To date, we’ve only had 30 people last year who have gone through the temporary foreign worker application process here in our province, through our government. We have this mechanism there to allow for organizations that work with agriculture, that work to fill specific needs, to fill in those gaps that are necessary to make sure that Ontario is successful.

This is a proposal that is currently in process. It hasn’t been approved, and it’s something we’re exploring, but we need to make sure that at the end of the day Ontario is set up for success, and temporary foreign workers, through the PNP program, is a mechanism we’ll use.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: As the minister will know, the fees associated with the PNP program are entirely provincial. Let’s go over some of the fees applicable in other jurisdictions. Currently, in order to process a skilled worker in BC, they charge $550; New Brunswick, $250; Newfoundland, $150; Prince Edward Island, $150. Alberta, who are also facing skilled labour charges but through the PNP have seen their immigration rate double, does not charge a fee for this service. But what does Ontario do? Charges $2,000 already.

Minister, how can you possibly expect Ontario’s businesses to compete with the rest of Canada when your government’s current processing fee is about four times higher than its nearest competitor? What are you going to do?

Hon. Michael Coteau: We want to make sure that Ontario is set up for success. If we compare our PNP program to other provinces—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton, come to order. Thank you.

Answer, please.

Hon. Michael Coteau: If we compare our PNP program in Ontario to other provinces, we know that Alberta and Manitoba have 5,000 each, and in Ontario we’re at 1,300. We need to make sure that we get to that 5,000 mark so we can attract the best and brightest people here to our province so we can continue to be successful.

This is a proposal that we want to move forward on. It’s something that we believe is right for the province. I just want to remind the member opposite that this is a cost recovery program; 98% of the actual cost of this proposal is cost recovery.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Minister of Infrastructure: Last week, I asked the Minister of Infrastructure about his department’s decision to more than double the rent paid by the Mary Berglund Community Health Centre in Ignace. In response, he stated that they’re paying $5 a square foot for basic rent. He neglected to point out that his figure fails to include the compulsory O&M fees, realty tax and management fees and all of the repair costs, which brings their triple net lease to $228,022.63, and translates to $23.77 per square foot, but the minister should know this because he has access to the same information.

My question is simple: Is the minister prepared to make this situation right instead of continuing to deny the facts?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I don’t think we disagree. The base rent is $5; it was $3.50. Every other health centre, the ones in my constituency, pay base rents much higher than $5—$12, $20, $25, plus they have to pay on top of that.

I have said many times to the member that we are trying to work with them, and there has been significant communication between my office and Mary Berglund to try and sort through how we can do that. Obviously $3.50, which was the base rent—before it was raised; it was raised to $5—is a relatively modest rent.

I appreciate the challenges that the health centre is facing. We are working with the Ministry of Health right now—who have correspondingly increased their grants to do that—to try and figure out a way, either by looking at the amount of space or the storage space, to find a solution to it. But they are not paying inordinately high rents compared to other health centres.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Mary Berglund CHC has been trying to resolve this issue for three years. Whenever the issue is raised in question period or through letters to ministry officials, the response from the government is never grounded in accurate information or correct figures. This rent is so unaffordable that already they’ve been forced to lay off staff, and the executive director has voluntarily given herself a pay cut to help pay the bills.

The executive director is so desperate to resolve the situation and protect the viability of her CHC that she has travelled to Queen’s Park today, and she’s sitting with a board member in the gallery. Will the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care meet with the executive director today, after question period, to finally resolve this issue?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The short answer is yes, of course, and I had committed to the member from Kenora–Rainy River that as soon as this House rises, I would come to her constituency to meet if it wasn’t solved by that time. I will maintain that commitment: If we cannot resolve it before the House rises, I will come up and view the situation personally.

I would also be interested in the details of the funding formula, because the LHIN funds increases to health centres. If there is a gap there or there’s information that we may be missing, I would be quite happy to be so informed.

The challenge is—and this is a challenge across government; I want to say this so all members understand—historically, over the last many decades, we were charging different rents, so there were hidden subsidies. The idea now is to get to full cost recovery so that everything is fair and transparent. If in that process there have been problems, we’ll correct them.

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of the Environment.

This week is Canadian Environment Week, which is an opportunity for people across Canada to celebrate our natural environment. The theme this year is Water—Working Together, and it’s a fitting tribute to 2013 being designated as the International Year of Water Co-operation.

Considering our province borders on four Great Lakes and is home to more than a quarter of a million lakes, rivers and streams, working together to restore and protect our water is critical to maintaining our natural wealth.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please tell the House how the government is helping people in their communities, working together, to protect their local water sources?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you for the question, and I’m pleased to acknowledge in the gallery a former environment minister, Norm Sterling, who is with us today.

This year’s theme for Canadian Environment Week provides an excellent opportunity for people to reflect on the excellent work we’ve achieved together protecting such a valuable resource called water.

Our government is helping people come together through their communities and local organizations to play a role in protecting their local source of water. Our Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund supports local, co-operative activities that aim to restore and safeguard areas across the Great Lakes and the St.

Lawrence River basin; the Lake Partner Program is a volunteer-based water quality monitoring program which helps us monitor more than 600 inland lakes; and the Showcasing Water Innovation program fosters innovation by funding partners across the province who are finding innovative and cost-effective solutions for managing drinking water, waste water and stormwater systems. This is people working together for the environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to thank the minister for providing the House with details about the various great programs and invaluable volunteer efforts people have undertaken across the province, co-operating and working together to protect our water.

I’m also pleased to see our government taking continued action to foster community co-operation and facilitate the type of collaboration that is required to restore our fresh water back to environmental health.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please elaborate on future initiatives our government will be undertaking to support local efforts to protect Ontario’s fresh water sources?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Yes. Again, I’d like to thank the member for the question.

The 2013 Ontario budget is building upon the successful leadership role that communities have taken in protecting local drinking water sources across Ontario. The budget, if passed, will provide $13.5 million to protect the quality and quantity of drinking water sources for the people of Ontario, working in partnership with small and rural municipalities.

We have to remember where this all started: Walkerton. We can draw a straight line from the Walkerton tragedy to Justice O’Connor’s recommendation to the work of the source protection committees. Our government has already invested $200 million in the local development of source water protection plans, and we look forward with anticipation to continuing to support our small and rural municipalities, with the support of my opposition colleagues in passing the budget.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. All throughout this gas plant scandal, you have maintained that this is a problem—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You’re going to want to hear this—you have maintained that this is all Dalton McGuinty’s fault. Your House leader today issued a statement saying that since February you’ve put new rules in place. Our party has emails from Monique Smith, the Premier’s head of transition, a senior adviser in the Premier’s office and a former MPP of this assembly. In this email, she’s discussing government business about privileged gas plant documents and questioning the Speaker’s ruling into the contempt of Parliament. I’ll provide those to you, Speaker.

Do you know the date of those emails, Speaker? From Monique Smith on March 6, 2013. The Premier’s most senior transition adviser is now clearly implicated in the gas plant scandal. Will you fire Monique Smith today and will you call the OPP in to investigate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite has that email. The member opposite has that information. As I have said, we have done everything in our power to answer the questions and provide the information that has been asked for.

There are instances when private email needs to be used in partisan situations, in situations where it’s non-government. There were instances in transition where private email was used by volunteers, by people who were part of the transition. We are working very hard to make sure that all the information is provided; witness the fact that the member opposite has the information that she was looking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Therein lies the problem. Yesterday her Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the Liberal campaign team and the government were the same thing. That’s a type of arrogance and hypocrisy that is astounding to the people whom I represent.

I have another email and it is from the Premier herself, this one on February 10, 2013. It’s from Monique Smith, who was using her Premier’s office email account, which meant that if she had one on February 10, 2013, she certainly had one on March 6, when she was conducting her government business on her Gmail account. What’s curious about Monique Smith’s February 10, 2013, email is that this one is sent to kathleenowynne@gmail.com. Premier, that’s your email—your personal email—used in this gas plant cover-up. Can you tell me what other government business you’re doing on your private Gmail account in order to skirt privacy laws in this—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, the member opposite has that information. The member opposite has the email and has the contents of the email. What I will do and have done is make sure that when there are questions, where there is relevant information, we provide that information and we provide the answers, which is why the member opposite has the email in question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health. Families with loved ones in long-term-care homes expect these homes to be safe. Yesterday the minister said that all of these homes receive annual inspections, but she neglected to mention that these are related to complaints and critical incidents.

In communities like Windsor, 90% of long-term-care homes have never received a full inspection as required by this government’s own rules. Will the minister commit to providing the full resident quality inspections for every home so that families don’t have to wait for a tragic incident to occur before seeing an inspector in their long-term-care home?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Yes, let me be very clear: There are three different kinds of inspections. There are the critical-incident and complaint-related inspections, and last year there were 2,347 of those inspections. There are also the RQI, the more thorough, intensive inspections. In addition, there are inspections that are done in homes where there have been no complaints received in that year. There is an inspector in every home, every year.

I look forward to the supplementary because I think we’ve been over these numbers a few times. I do want to talk about some of the other excellent work that is happening in long-term-care homes to improve the quality of care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families have placed their trust in this government to do their job and make sure that long-term-care homes for seniors are inspected annually. When 90% of long-term-care homes in Windsor-Essex have never had a full inspection, it’s clear that this government is failing at its job to protect seniors.

The government has already missed their first deadline of December 31, 2011. Will the minister provide a new timeline of when every long-term-care home in Windsor and in Ontario will actually receive a proactive, thorough inspection?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I’ve said, I have asked ministry officials to come forward with some options on how to strengthen inspections in long-term-care homes.

But let’s talk about some of the other things that are happening. I am particularly proud of Behavioural Supports Ontario, and you’ve heard me talk about that, but I thought it might be interesting to hear specifically.

There’s now a mobile outreach team in the Waterloo Wellington LHIN. They’re following 818 residents in long-term-care homes who have behavioural challenges. Since they have become active, they’ve seen an 81% reduction in observed behaviours recorded for those particular patients—an