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

June 5, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Jun-05 (PDF)

L061 - Tue 5 Jun 2012 / Mar 5 jun 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 June 2012 Mardi 5 juin 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

POWER PLANT

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

ARBITRATION

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

SKILLS TRAINING

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

DEFERRED VOTES

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FOREST FIRE

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

BACARDI LTD.

ACTON-GEORGETOWN WALK FOR ALS

ENERGY CONTRACTS

TIM HORTONS CAMP DAY

ST MARYS CEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS

SENIORS’ MONTH

ARTS AND CULTURE AWARDS

HUMAN RIGHTS

SENIORS’ MONTH

ARTS AND CULTURE AWARDS

HUMAN RIGHTS

SENIORS’ MONTH

ARTS AND CULTURE AWARDS

PETITIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

INVASIVE SPECIES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

WIND TURBINES

TOURISM

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT

AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on May, 29, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to strengthen consumer protection with respect to consumer agreements relating to wireless services accessed from a cellular phone, smart phone or any other similar mobile device / Projet de loi 82, Loi visant à mieux protéger les consommateurs en ce qui concerne les conventions de consommation portant sur les services sans fil accessibles au moyen d’un téléphone cellulaire, d’un téléphone intelligent ou de tout autre appareil mobile semblable.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: I didn’t have the opportunity to do an inaugural speech, Mr. Speaker, so I was going to start with that today, before I complete my speech today.

I took over the riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry from a list of people who worked long and hard for the area. Many here and at home can recount the work of Jim Brownell, my immediate predecessor, who took a keen interest in history and put the interests of our people at the forefront. He followed John Cleary, a local mayor and warden of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, working alongside my dad, Bernie McDonell, who was a former reeve of Lancaster township.

Previous to John, Noble Villeneuve, Minister of Agriculture under the Mike Harris government, ensured that the issues of rural Ontario were always addressed. No matter where I go, if people make the connection, they immediately bring back stories of Noble, and regardless of their party affiliation, they talk about the fun they had.

I’d like to talk about the proud riding in eastern Ontario. The historic counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the gateway to Upper Canada in the late 1700s, were originally settled by Scottish Highlanders and the Empire Loyalists after the American Revolution. This group of hard-working pioneers turned rough, untouched land into productive farms and villages. But one of their top priorities, next to food and shelter, was to immediately ensure that their children were educated to ensure their prosperity and the prosperity of the country. Many of these people and their descendants moved west and played major roles in the development of this country.

Concerned about the ambitions of our neighbours to the south, Rev. Alexander Macdonell obtained permission from the crown to assemble a militia, and the Glengarry Fencibles were formed at St. Raphaels. They were instrumental in defeating the Americans at Crysler’s Farm on the other remembrance day, November 11, 1813, blocking the advance on Montreal of the Americans and forever changing the history of North America. This group went on to become the SD&G Highlanders, distinguishing themselves in the First and Second World Wars. Canada’s oldest regiment is still honouring Canada in far-off areas of the world, recently returning from Afghanistan.

I was born and raised on a dairy farm in Lancaster township in eastern Ontario, the son of Bernie and Mary Elizabeth, descendants of the original settlers, and part of a family of 12 boys and girls. We learned at a young age to pitch in and help out with the daily load on the farm. Our educational experience spanned everything from a one-room school in Bridge End, moving up to the three-room Sam J. McLeod school at Bainsville and on to Glengarry District High School, with 1,400 children.

Then I was accepted into an engineering program at Queen’s University. I look at my time at Queen’s with great pride, where I obtained more than just an education and made many great friends. We worked hard, especially in first year when many of our friends didn’t make it through. In fact, in a class of 76, almost two thirds of the class didn’t make it through—definitely a warning to our class. In the end, it paid off and I’m a proud Queen’s alumnus.

When I visit schools today to talk about local and now provincial politics, I encourage young high school students not only to go to post-secondary school but to consider the field of engineering, as it teaches one to work on a team; to use the latest science to analyze problems; and to propose practical, cost-effective solutions.

As a side note, I remember a non-engineering class in which the presenter’s entire lecture—for an hour—talked about the logic of engineers in politics, for this very reason of having a background in science: being trained to analyze problems and develop practical solutions. One would think this professor was actually looking forward to today’s government and the need for practical, cost-effective solutions.

Growing up on a dairy farm in the 1960s and 1970s taught me about early mornings, long days and hard work. I experienced first-hand how supply management changed the industry, definitely for the better. I have seen milk cheques in the early 1960s for $7 a week. Granted, it was the spring before calving, and lots of inflation has occurred since, but there wasn’t a lot of money to go around, especially for a family of 12. Supply management allowed for mechanization and immense improvements in efficiencies that provide Canada with secure, high-quality food that we have grown used to today.

During university, I had a number of summer jobs: on the farm; installing water and sewer in Vankleek Hill; working in the oil sands of Fort McMurray; and as a technician at the Bruce nuclear plant. After university, I took a job with Bell Canada, working in Brockville and Sudbury before returning home to my native Glengarry county. I enjoyed 32 years at Bell Canada, which allowed me to spend most of my time in eastern Ontario. I particularly enjoyed my time working on the rollout of high-speed Internet to the area, as I truly believe it is an economic equalizer.

The original Scottish emigrants, mixed with the French movement from Quebec, developed a truly unique area of Canada, a musical and social atmosphere that is labelled today as the Celtic heartland of Canada.

I married my wife, Margie McRae, a high school friend, and we raised three children: Marion, Chelsea and Bernie. It was then that I got involved as a volunteer, first filling in as president of the Border men’s hockey league. I also started coaching minor soccer and hockey, as part of the Char-Lan minor associations for more than 20 years. It was during these years at Char-Lan that I worked with Greg McCulloch on the executive. We really enjoyed working with the kids and watching them have fun. We worked countless hours together, and we always had a way of making it happen for the kids.

I enjoyed working with all the great kids, watching them grow up and being part of the community. I take great pride in seeing today Michael Robertson, who’s on Canada’s Olympic track team, and Christina Julien, who is Canada’s second-leading scorer on the women’s national soccer team.

I then joined the Williamstown Fair board, a true example of volunteers at work. This August, Canada’s oldest annual fair will be celebrating its 200th anniversary.

I eventually got into politics, back when Bob Rae was Premier, serving as councillor for nine years, mayor for eight, and warden in the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in 2006.

I followed in the footsteps of my grandfather, Rory Angus McLeod, who was the deputy reeve of Lancaster township in the 1920s and 1930s, and my dad, Bernie, reeve of Lancaster township in the 1980s. I always tried to follow the example he set, as he always believed in treating everybody fairly and the same.

I would like to take a second to acknowledge some of the people who helped me through my days in politics. Of course, my wife, Margie, and my family—our children, Bernie, Marion and Chelsea—were always there when I needed them. In the early days on council, I met Garry Roberson, a tremendous volunteer in the township, who helped me throughout my days in politics and showed me how to run an election. He, along with Rick Marvel and Barry Millet, loved politics and spent many a late night working on the cause. And of course, my brothers and sisters always stepped up to help when I needed something done.

My brother Chris, mayor of North Glengarry, and his wife, Yvonne, were big helps. During my run for MPP, I had many great supporters: Marilyn McMahon, Guy Lauzon, Eric Duncan, Glen Grant, Marcel Lapierre, Les O’Shaughnessy, Verla Perrin, and many more. I’d like to thank them so much.

Now I’d like to get on to the task at hand in Bill 82,

An Act to strengthen consumer protection with respect to consumer agreements relating to wireless services accessed from a cellular phone, smart phone or any other similar mobile device. That’s quite a mouthful, and I’ll refer to its somewhat shorter name, the Wireless Services Agreements Act. It was introduced several weeks ago, on April 12, with some fanfare and great anticipation. I have a press release of that day in front of me. It makes some interesting reading. Before I delve into it, though, I’d like to share some speculations of mine with the House.

We all remember that on the days before and after April 12, this assembly was seized with the budget. We were observing a passionate deal-or-no-deal tango, particularly during question period, courtesy of the Premier and the leader of the third party. According to many Ontarians and many members of the press, there was a credible chance that Ontario might be plunged into an election over the Premier’s disastrous mismanagement of the province’s affairs.

With pressure heating up on the Ornge scandal, we were looking for a diversion. When we consider not just the policy but the timing of the announcement, I can see that the bill we have before us may be more about politics than actual substance. Any announcement from a ministry is guaranteed to grab the attention of the media, even more so during a slower news day at Queen’s Park, as a constituency week always is, and the week of April 12 was a constituency week.

Furthermore, a Thursday announcement was just in time for the Saturday and weekend papers. By all standards, the Ministry of Consumer Services pulled off a public relations success by diverting attention toward this feel-good bill.

Examining the release itself, I’m immediately treated to the words “McGuinty government,” and I can’t help but wonder why the minister wouldn’t seek to take some of the credit for introducing such an apparently popular and apparently sweeping reform in an industry every Ontarian deals with.

But let’s not give all the credit to the minister, as her honourable colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has waged a battle for transparency in wireless contracts since 2010 and presented a bill to this Legislature on our third sitting day, November 23, to that effect, a law that I will remind you passed second reading on December 1 and was in committee awaiting examination.

Here I will point out, Speaker, another aspect of this government’s approach that puzzles me. It is important to bring this to light, and its relevance to the bill in question, because the intent and the spirit of the law are sometimes as important as the law itself.

The member from Sault Ste. Marie introduced this bill on November 23. It received all-party support at second reading on December 1 and was sent to committee, where it languished for several months and is still not moving. With this bill before the House, due to our parliamentary procedures, Bill 5 will likely not see the light.

Had the government cared about public input into the hearings and the workings of the province, rather than isolate itself in the working towers of its ministries, the committees of this Legislature would have been created before the winter break and allowed to sit through that session. Had the government genuinely cared about cellphone consumers, they would have moved the relevant amendments to Bill 5 in committee during December and January, and in the second sitting week of February the regulation could have been put in place.

Come August, the provisions of a wireless consumer protection bill would be in full force. Instead, it’s June already and we’re just beginning the discussion all over again—same principle, same faces, different bill number, and of course, different claimants to the credit.

I know the member for Sault Ste. Marie cares deeply about the issue, and I’m sure he is as frustrated with the needless setback as are those Ontarians who complain about their cellphone service.

Seeing that we’re talking about the timing of this government’s announcements and their subordination of policy to column inches in the Toronto Star, let me offer this House another interesting fact. The CRTC announced earlier this year that it would begin consultations regarding a national regulatory framework on wireless contracts. The proposals are supposed to be modeled after Quebec’s Bill 60, and involve simple contract terms, less burdensome cancellations, transparency in costs and transparency in agreement amendments. It sounds quite similar to the bill we have before us and to Bill 5.

The CRTC informed the media of the consultation process on April 4, a full eight days before the ministry issued the press release about the “McGuinty government taking strong action.” Ordinary citizens could contribute to the consultation online by visiting the CRTC website and submitting their opinion before May 3, the very same day the minister brought this bill before the House and all but killed Bill 5, from which no more media could be milked.

Since this government is one to appreciate short and snappy taglines such as “No more cell shock,” I recommend we call this bill by an even shorter name, one that could sum up the intent very succinctly: Bill 82, the “me too” act.

The same release, dated April 12, proceeds in its first sentence to state that many Ontarians experience a shock when they open their cell bill due to either out-of-the-blue charges or to being billed for something they believed was included in their plan.

The cited source is a report by the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services. I took time to read this particular item, and the ministry’s figures are a little incomplete. It is true that, of the commissioner’s complaints, 62% dealt with wireless services. What the ministry forgets to mention is the total number of complaints. Considering that we’re in the process of passing a regulation affecting a significant number of Ontarians, the public deserves to be as informed as the government, if it isn’t better informed already. The total number of complaints from all Canadians logged by the commissioner for the 2010-11 period is 8,007. Of these, 3,314 came from Ontario.

According to an earlier and more informative press release by the member from Sault Ste. Marie when he introduced Bill 5, 77% of Ontarians have a wireless contract, about 10 million of us. So by simple mathematics, we see that if you’re from Ontario, you have a one-in-3,000 chance of complaining to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services. Assuming 10 bills per year, for the sake of simplicity, that translates into approximately one complaint-worthy bill every 300 years.

The annual report this data is extracted from does not go on to split the complaints with merit from those where the CCTS sided with the provider outright, so we cannot know for sure how many customers were wronged in this time period.

The case studies quoted a few pages further paint a mixed picture regarding excessive data bills. Despite what the government may have us believe, one’s shock at a large bill for data usage is no guarantee that the bill is cancelled or reduced.

The CCTS, the government’s very source of justification for this bill, has confidence in wireless companies’ data-monitoring tools. Allow me to quote: “Absent any tangible evidence to suggest that there is a problem with the manner in which the service providers’ tools are measuring data usage, we too have little choice but to rely on the accuracy and integrity of the system-measured data usage. To date we have never concluded a complaint with a finding that the provider’s system tool was inaccurate.

But consumers tell us that they are frustrated and unhappy about being expected to simply accept the accuracy of the data as reported by the service provider. We know that no electronic system is foolproof, and we are aware that one provider admitted an inaccuracy in the way its system billed data usage to a small portion of its customer base.”

How did we come to this bill? Over the last 20 years, communication technologies have leaped forward in ways that we could never have predicted. Nine years ago, BlackBerrys made their first appearance on the broader market, and the now-famous iPhone was launched as recently as 2007. It is common for this market and society in general to evolve faster than the laws passed to govern them. The wireless service industry is a good example of that. We can trust the statistics or we can trust our own eyes.

Cellphone communications are shifting away from merely calling and texting towards more data-intensive uses such as Web browsing, media streaming and social networking. I believe that last year smart phones and tablet computers accounted for more sales and more data flow over the Internet than personal computers.

That is an immense challenge to the industry, considering that the underground networks used by conventional phones and broadband lines cannot be easily used, if at all, for transmitting data used by a smart phone. Companies must invest in new towers and new transmission technology, and the money has to come from somewhere.

There seems to be a consensus by public and the media that the rates paid by cell subscribers in North America are far too high, and that Canadian rates are higher than US rates as well. Reading the Toronto Star

article of April 15 offers some insight into the perception that the public or the government have of the wireless phone industry: terms like “gouging,” “relief” and “cracking down,” strong language fit to describe a national emergency.

As legislators elected to exercise our powers wisely, we must approach every issue from different angles and assess each one on its merits, rather than its

interpretation by the papers. Our rates are often compared unfavourably to European ones, both in terms of cost and quality of service. The market conditions are not similar. The Canadian market is regulated more tightly than those of the Europeans, but this is only half the problem.

The average European country has a population density of approximately 100 people per square kilometre, over 28.5 times greater than Canada’s 3.5 people per square kilometre. We have a total market of about 30 million individuals spread over 10 million square miles. The entire country of Austria wouldn’t fill the riding of Algoma–Manitoulin. So we’re comparing apples to oranges, and we’re missing the most important aspects of the debate.

Quality of service is not dependent on land mass. The government will talk about cell shock, and we will gladly engage them in that discussion. But many more Canadians and Ontarians get frustrated at the customer service provided by our largest wireless companies, and this bill will do nothing, and the government can do nothing, to address this concern. Consumers should not be led to believe that this legislation will all of a sudden solve the problems in the wireless sector, for it won’t.

It is, however, a step in the right direction. It will allow consumers to break unsatisfactory contracts without having to pay the full liability for the remainder of the agreement. We join Ontario consumers in welcoming that, although our reasons and priorities may differ slightly. The current arrangement, where the consumer has to pay up front upon cancellation for all the monthly services he or she will not receive is outlandish and simply an income guarantee scheme for wireless providers.

The excuse that cancellation fee agreements between companies are banned by anti-cartel legislation is true but misleading. Every enterprise in this country is still free to conduct business as it pleases, and could unilaterally waive the requirement for a consumer to pay the remainder of their contract liability. Rogers did this in Ontario, effective January 22 this year.

So before we jump on to the bash-the-market bandwagon, there has been no market failure in this regard—absolutely none. Consumers were legitimately fed up with being bound by the threat of a large cancellation fee. It has been solved.

I worked for Bell for 32 years. It’s a company that many love to hate, but it was Bell, and its subsidiary, Virgin Mobile, first introduced the concept of a tab—no-term contract—and deferred payment for the mobile device of your choosing. This concept is being taken up very enthusiastically by other carriers, their low-cost subsidiaries usually jumping in first.

I won’t assert that the system is perfect. A consumer purchasing a $350 phone with Koodo, 100% deferred on a $35 monthly contract where 10% of one’s bill is written off the cost of the phone every month, would pay off his phone in 100 months. To some, that may be a laughable proposal, yet it’s a step in the right direction. The consumer is not bound, and they know exactly what they owe on the device and can choose a cheaper device if they so choose.

Another area where the market is working without much government intervention is domestic roaming. Most European companies have separate area codes for mobile devices and one rate for all calls to any part of the country. Any special offers are limited to calls within a carrier’s own network. For instance, Spain and France give cellphone companies area codes 06 and 07, the UK is 07 and so on.

As members of the North American numbering plan, Canada does not have that possibility. It does, however, have some positive outcomes. By tying cellular numbers to the local area code, the distinction between calls to cellphones and land lines becomes impossible. Households can go entirely wireless and forgo their land line. In many urban areas, this will not affect users’ access to broadband Internet services either, thanks to the availability of affordable so-called “dry” DSL lines that work without an active phone.

Some statistics by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association estimate that 13% of Canadian households use only wireless service today, and the number is growing. In the US and Canada, a conventional contract used to limit the usage rates to local calling, unless the user purchased a long-distance package. This is no longer the case. To the best of my knowledge, Koodo Mobile is the first Canadian company to do away with domestic roaming and long-distance charges. The market has again worked in this case, because so-called Canada-wide calling is not a rarity any more.

But by all standards across the low-cost providers, no company will ever sell you a service at a net loss. Therefore, doing away with long distance and roaming rates did not impose a total cost on the industry.

I will take care to highlight that the system isn’t perfect, either. Low-cost carriers that do not have national coverage are at a disadvantage, since they cannot offer their consumers the mobility that larger, more established providers can give. At some point, outside the GTA, Montreal and Vancouver, your low-cost operator will need to use someone else’s network and charge you accordingly. Furthermore, the possible cost of removing long-distance rates may have been passed on to consumers through higher rates in data or a less convenient choice of service and add-on bundles.

Only true competition, in a truly open and transparent market, will drive down the total cost of any wireless service. I am interested to hear the opinion on this matter at the committee stage of Mr. Sawiris, chair of Wind Mobile. He is seeking to expand his service in Canada and could offer some interesting insights.

In the meantime, we have to make the limited market price we’re stuck with work. The imperfect arrangement of low-cost subsidiaries to national carriers and smaller, locally bound independent carriers is allowing greater experimentation with plans, tariffs, offers and prices. The price system, better than any survey or Ministry of Finance pre-budget tele-town hall, is allowing customers, Canadians and Ontarians, to vote with their wallets. As a result, we are seeing greater availability of desirable services and we have a greater choice of payment plans and options.

The US counterpart to the wireless telecommunications association had this to say about individual states regulating their own cell market:

“Policy-makers should take a very cautious view towards regulating” the wireless sector. However, “if additional legislative or regulatory support is needed ... consumers would be best served if government action remains at the national level, and the states are only allowed to take appropriate action relative to their laws of general applicability. As the national licensing authority over a national industry, the FCC is the appropriate government body to safeguard consumer protection, public health and safety in the event of any demonstrated market failure.”

Speaker, we have an imperfect market, but it isn’t stale and it isn’t set in stone. It is responding to consumer signals. I don’t see a demonstrated failure here, either. Bill 82 is a good proposal, and we look forward to examining it more thoroughly in committee, but it isn’t as urgent as some fearmongers would have us believe.

I spoke earlier about comparisons to Europe, and we need to compare apples to apples, so here’s a thought: Let’s compare the cost of a Blackberry Curve 9360 with a plan in a densely populated area, provided by the same company in Canada and in Italy. I won’t mention the names, so not to bias people. In Canada, one gets a Blackberry Curve, at the regular price of $300 Canadian, for $0 on a so-called “tab” that’s wiped clean every three years. After three years the handset is yours; the condition: maintaining a $40-a-month contract.

No commitment, except the payment of the remainder of the handset, if the agreement is cancelled within three years. For $40 a month, one gets unlimited calling throughout Canada, unlimited incoming calls, unlimited texting in Canada, unlimited data and caller ID. The unlimited

part is, of course, dependent on where you are. Outside the carrier’s coverage range, you’re out of luck.

In Italy, the same company, in a densely populated area, offers the following: The phone’s regular price is €300, or around $387. You can get it for zero if, for a period of two years, you maintain a so-called platinum plan. This includes essentially unlimited talk, texting and data. The price: €70, or C$90. Drop the plan to gold, which includes almost unlimited talk and text, and you’ll pay C$127, and €50 or C$65 a month. Overall, for the same phone one would spend C$1,400 on here, you would spend $2,100 in Europe. It shows, Speaker, that there’s an inordinate amount of hype and hysteria around the issue of wireless communication, and it clouds sound judgment.

The main Canadian providers of wireless services have joined the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and abide by a code of conduct, freely available for anyone to read. Wireless providers swear by this code, as it includes deliverables designed to make every wireless consumer in Canada an informed one.

In theory, the following information should always be available to the consumer, either at the point of sale or on the company’s website: monthly base charge; minutes and data included in the base charge; additional minutes and data rates, which most commonly are the source of cell shock; notice of roaming charges; additional taxes and fees collected; duration of service period; early termination fees; trial period terms; prepaid credit and account expiration dates; and coverage map.

When the consumer signs a contract, the code of conduct demands that the provider include the following in the agreement: all charges that are billed, and how they are calculated; consumer rights in case the charges are changed; the minimum service period and term duration; renewal conditions; and cancellation procedures and cancellation fees.

As far as advertising goes, the code becomes slightly less about deliverables and more about principle: “We do our best to clarify the conditions and charges that apply to the advertised prices for our phones, other wireless devices, and services. If additional charges may or will apply, that fact will be noted in the advertisement.

“Any disclaimers used in our advertising will also be clear, understandable and directly linked to the advertised offer.”

On this issue, we could definitely do better. The code does not have criteria for prominence and no mention is made of all-in pricing, as is the case of Bill 82. If this legislation takes effect, the advertised price will have to include all charges over the entire duration of the agreement if the advertised offer is a contract, or the total monthly charge before HST if the advertised offer is a month-to-month. For a marketing department, this is a nightmare. An often-used strategy in many industries involves the advertisement of a price below a certain threshold to entice the consumer, and the deal is usually concluded personally with a sales representative.

In advertising, we are constantly bombarded with prices just short of a solid number, such as $199.99, followed by small print. The concealment of important facts in small print will be disallowed by Bill 82. For example, the words “for the first three months only; full monthly charge of X” will now have to be featured prominently in the ad, though the law makes no mention of exactly what “prominent” means. I guess we’ll have to wait and see the regulations the minister will make.

Whatever course of action this government decides to take on this issue, they should take great care to ensure that they don’t suddenly deprive many marketing executives and advertising departments of their bread and butter. They are well-paying jobs, and reducing our tax base would be quite a pity in these tough economic times.

All-in pricing is a tool for transparency. However, only when it is fair and applies equally to all is it worthwhile, and this is very important. If the government purports to take a stance for consumers, it should follow through without affording any category or provider a special privilege.

The record for this government on this particular issue is not a good one, and I will provide one example. In the automotive dealer sector, regulated by the Ministry of Consumer Services, the dealers’ greatest grievance revolves around an exemption in the vehicle dealers’ act that binds dealers to all-in pricing but excludes manufacturer advertising. Large advertising campaigns by manufacturers turn into a nightmare for the dealer, as the vehicles are advertised at manufacturer cost without factoring in the costs the dealer has to incur. When the dealer quotes a customer the all-in price, his transparency is taken for dishonesty and profiteering.

This party will never buy the argument that there is still a profit margin somewhere, despite government regulation. It is not the government’s job, nor has it ever been, to regulate revenue, profit or business planning. This is an important matter because it involves the fairness of the law and the equality of its application.

Take the bill, turn to page 14 and look at

section 23(d): “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations ... exempting any supplier, wireless agreement, goods or services, any combination of any of them or any class of any of them from any provision of this act or the regulations, and prescribing conditions or restrictions that apply in respect of an exemption.”

I look forward to hearing from the government on why this clause would be included and why its scope had to be so broad. It leaves the minister vulnerable to intense lobbying for the purpose of exempting either an entire carrier or a particular product from the act. If I were a dishonest wireless service provider, I would lobby to exempt my newest offered product—let’s say, the newest iPhone—from the requirement to disclose its real market value.

If a regulation to this effect was issued, my customers wouldn’t know the size of the discount I offered them when I signed them up, a discount that they would be expected to pay back should they cancel early. Am I being pessimistic? To my understanding, this is an entirely possible scenario. I look forward to the government side coming back with an answer to this, either during the debate or during the committee stage of this bill. Ontarians deserve to know why a law so widely touted as the silver bullet against all the ills of the cellphone industry includes such a cop-out clause.

As far as cancellation fees go, we on this side of the House are in favour of the provisions in Bill 82. Taking away the right of carriers to charge the consumer total unpaid future liabilities is a way to increase competition. Carriers that provided good customer service and good network service were left at a disadvantage by those who cut corners on some of those aspects and bound their users with the threat of a hefty bill that was sometimes larger than a tax refund. I know we will hear more about this in committee.

I will compare Ontario’s cellphone customers to mortgage holders and wireless service providers to banks, for the sake of argument. When we take out a mortgage, the bank doesn’t give us the loan out of the goodness of their heart or because we looked well on that particular day. The bank is ensuring its income flow, your interest, so that they can run their operations, expand into other markets, expand their service and offer their depositors an attractive interest rate on savings. In much the same way, our wireless companies prefer long-term contracts because they ensure a greater income security for the provider.

Switching phone companies is not the easiest of tasks. Some people will swallow their frustration and stay with the provider they have an agreement with.

There is an argument to be made by the wireless industry that regulating advertising and cancellations will lead to higher prices. Less secure income will involve, according to some analyses, a drive to increase immediate revenue by raising prices and reducing choice. Earlier this year, I received a brief on the topic from the legislative research service, whom I wish to thank very much, on behalf of the whole House, for their tireless hard work. Let’s see if this argument holds water:

“To date, there is no empirical evidence of how the legislation has affected consumers or the industry. The CWTA maintains that the new regulations will result in increased costs and higher prices for consumers; however, the CWTA has received no feedback from its members regarding the impact of the Quebec law.

“According to Quebec’s consumer protection office, the new requirements do not appear to have affected prices or the subsidies offered by service providers, and no companies have left the Quebec market since the new law took effect.”

The price of a contract with any major carrier is the same in Quebec as it is in Ontario, and the bundle offers appear to be identical as well.

Shy of opening up the companies’ financial books and the board meeting minutes, we will never know if the enactment of strict consumer protection legislation in Quebec resulted in the rest of Canada sharing the price. For instance, we will not know whether, without Canada’s law, our own contract would be $3 a month cheaper or include extra data. It’s simply a matter of speculation.

As I said earlier, this government appears determined to chase the limelight on this issue, whether it’s wise or not. The CRTC is consulting with stakeholders throughout the nation, and despite two other provinces introducing legislation, BC and Alberta have already chosen to put the CRTC on notice: “Draw up a national standard or we will regulate our own.” It is also worth noting that where the CRTC creates a national standard in an area where jurisdiction is shared by the provinces, the provincial regulating efforts become moot.

Are we jumping the gun on this issue? The way the ministry handled media releases and the tabling of this bill, I believe we might be. We are chasing after Quebec, Manitoba and the CRTC, and trying at the same time not to be outdone by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

A rushed approach to legislation is dangerous. However mighty and caring this government thinks it is, it is still subject to the laws of unintentional consequences. Good, thorough consultation is the solution, but we have witnessed time and time again the yawning consultation gap this government opened between itself and Ontarians.

It appears this trait is not limited to this Liberal Party. I have been told that the assembly of Nova Scotia sent a wireless regulation bill to committee, who sent an offer to the CWTA to present its case at the committee meeting with one day’s notice. We have no explanation for this behaviour other than the unwillingness to hear the other side, heed the warnings it may sound and examine whether they are based in reality.

In a minority Parliament, as we see today, being popular and being perceived as decisive seem to have trumped responsible government and statesman-like restraint. We can now look at Bill 19 and the lack of consultation with landlords, or to Bill 30 and the absence of any statistical base on which it could rest, or regulation 233/10 and the way it was hidden from everyone, key stakeholders included. So we can go on and examine Bill 50 and the false premise that it is a solution to a problem that stems from the government itself and the attitude to accountability.

Consultation has been forgotten by this government and we are offered no guarantees that this bill won’t be more of the same exercises in grandstanding, wedging Ontarians against each other, or chasing positive press over good policy.

I also wish to thank my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings for delivering the response to the minister’s statement in the Legislature on May 3 while I was being briefed by ministry staff on the proposed law. We have been assured by the minister and her staff that this bill is consistent with initiatives undertaken in other provinces to regulate cellphone contracts, and I, for one, would appreciate being able to take them at their word. However, I can’t, and I will explain why.

There are many proposals for improving cellphone service in Ontario and Canada. Some are radical, some less so. It is useful in this regard to examine the comment sections of various news websites that deal with cellphone regulation stories. One often cited is the abolition of the three-year term and the mandating of a maximum 24 months for a contract. In the context of easier and less hassling cancellations, such a proposal becomes redundant, but if it were implemented, it would not be beneficial to the consumer. Three-year terms are not an ideal agreement to begin with.

Smart phones have a shorter shelf life than that; the warranty does not extend that long; and if the customer requires a newer handset, it usually comes with a brand new agreement. I don’t see the need to examine that proposal, and I hope the government is going to be taking my same advice.

Other proposals include mandatory unlocking of the mobile device once it is paid off or the contract is up. The argument on the consumer side is that should a device last that long and be paid off through consumer compliance with the contract terms, it should become his property. The original bill by the member from Sault Ste. Marie included such a provision, yet is nowhere to be found in Bill 82. It may have been an omission or the result of consultations with the industry. In any case, it is a proposal we are open to.

When we examine the speed at which technologies develop, combined with the shorter life of most high-technology gadgets, following a two- or three-year term, the original device will have to be depreciated significantly. Moreover, it would have been superseded by newer and more attractive models and therefore of little market value.

The prospect of an unlocked smart phone at the end of a term could also be an encouragement for consumers to take greater care of their devices. We are sometimes treated to offers of no-questions-asked warranties on some goods which include repairs due to mishandling by the owner. On its surface, it’s a godsend for the consumer, who won’t need to worry about his or her choices and any decisions. But in the long run, it is an excuse for waste.

This leads me to another issue at play in this bill and the debate that surrounds it. The PC Party, more than anyone else in this chamber, has always stood on the side of personal freedom, choice and responsibility. We’re also the party that first acknowledges that a truly efficient market in any industry is founded on rules and transparency. I am concerned that the government’s intent with this bill is not just to create a transparent marketplace but to fool consumers. The rhetoric I hear from this government’s benches is that the consumer is always right and the cellphone company is always wrong.

I will therefore reference the same annual report from the complaints commissioner that the ministry so eagerly justifies this bill with.

Case study 1, concerning Internet service: “The consumer was receiving Internet service from a participating service provider that permitted the customer to use 25 GB of data each month. A few months after subscribing for the service, the customer began downloading movies and songs from the Internet. By his estimate, he downloaded approximately 100 movies and 300 songs during the month, in addition to web surfing, emailing and other activities.

“He later received a bill for about $250 for additional data usage not included in his plan.

“The customer’s complaint was that he should not have to pay the bill as he did not realize that downloading movies and songs from the Internet would consume such a large amount of data. During the course of our investigation, we found that the customer’s service provider had an online tool by which customers can check to see how much data they have used. However, the customer claims that he was not made aware of the existence of this tool.

“We concluded that it was the customer’s responsibility to monitor his usage, in particular given the significant change in the nature of his use. This is particularly important in cases such as this where the customer was unsure of how much data he was using when downloading movies and songs. Thus we did not recommend that the service provider waive the charges.”

Simply put, the watchdog is telling us, “Consumer beware.”

This principle applies to smart phones as much as it does to Internet services. Our own BlackBerrys have several applications on them that consume large amounts of data whenever they are active, including when they work in the background. Also, some applications may begin charging user fees the moment they are opened, whether intentionally or by accident.

In this context, the government will not be telling consumers the whole story.

Section 13 of this bill deviates from the models adopted by Quebec and Manitoba and the model possibly undergoing discussion at the CRTC. It is the part of the bill that requires cellphone companies to inform the user when they are about to reach their maximum allowed use, whatever service they are subscribed to. It will not change any provision regarding application user fees or provide relief for a customer who has found himself out of data halfway through the month.

Speaker, I wish the government would reconsider this

section even before the bill reaches committee stage, for reasons that would become very obvious to anyone reflecting on this matter. The bill is about 135 inches long, give or take a few, yet the

section of this bill that deals with the ministry’s raison d’être for this bill is only 1.25 inches long. The source of the largest and most widely publicized so-called cell shock is over-usage charges. Such charges for voice and text tend to be fairly contained and not entirely shocking.

To put things in context, one needs to talk six hours within a month above one’s allotted minutes to incur an overage charge of $100. Data is a lot easier to lose track of, something the commissioner expresses quite clearly as well. Allow me to quote: “In other contexts where consumers are making purchases of a product sold in units, or that has to be measured, consumer is able to verify the accuracy of the measurement, more or less, based on their personal experiences. For example, consumers have a sense of what a pound, kilogram or litre represents.

In addition, standardized measurement tools (for example, in gas pumps or on weight scales) are available to support the transaction. This allows consumers to have confidence that they are actually receiving what they are paying for.

“This also applies to other telecom services. When a customer makes a long-distance call, he is billed by the minute (or the second). Customers generally have a sense of how long” the call is “and can assess the amount they are billed for the long-distance call in light of that experience (and their phone probably also measures the length of the call!). Unfortunately, consumers cannot rely in the same way on their experience to measure a megabyte or gigabyte as they do a pound, kilogram or litre, since data is not a tangible product.”

Let’s be very clear and realistic before we continue: Nothing in the cellphone world is truly unlimited. The transmission capacity of our existing infrastructure and using our existing technologies is a set amount. It’s undoubtedly large enough to satisfy the current demand of Canadian consumers, but there is nonetheless a limit to it. Because it is scarce, the exchange of data to and from smart phones carries a price. I will not delve into debates on whether or not data plans available in Canada are priced fairly. It is beyond the point.

A telling trend from the past few years had unlimited data plans broadly available within an affordable price range. It contributed to a rapid penetration of smart phones and quasi-smart phones into the Canadian market. The same companies today will not likely offer similar service, or if they do, they will place certain limits on them. For instance, a common fair-use policy will have the user transferred to a slower data exchange server once his or her monthly usage exceeds a certain amount.

Cellphones today are becoming more like computers than phones. Moreover, 3G networks are being used by tablet devices as well, capable of performing very data-intensive tasks.

I will quote just one example: Watching a video on a BlackBerry screen will likely use 10 to 15 times less data than streaming the same video on an iPad. The uptake of data services is fast and the infrastructure needs expanding, so I predict we can expect greater limits on data plans in the future or a slower network. This

preamble is essential if we are to discuss the sort of cell shock the minister is attempting to tackle.

Data on a cellular plan is a resource to be used wisely and sparingly, and the consumer must always be aware of the terms and

definitions used in the industry. This issue is fairly new, and as a matter of fact, there is still confusion amongst insiders themselves regarding the estimated data usage of an average smart phone user. Some claim a standard Web page can weigh as much as four megabytes. An online usage estimator provided by Virgin Mobile suggests that a user visiting 10 Web pages a day and sending 10 emails a day from a non-BlackBerry smart phone will use 50 megabytes per month. When we are faced with such conflicting evidence, users should take control of their smart phone and be proactive.

The government does not need to impose an additional requirement upon cellphone providers, particularly one beyond the scope of Quebec, Manitoba and federal regulations, if this market has already provided an alternative.

A simple Google search for “data traffic monitoring apps” will show that independent application developers have already created dozens of either free or cheap apps that measure a phone’s data traffic. Some go as far as including used text messages and voice minutes. They are available on all platforms, including iPhones, BlackBerrys and Androids.

According to the CWTA, implementing an early warning system on the operator side would cost anywhere close to $100 million per operator. If every Canadian customer bought a 99-cent app to monitor his or her data use and made a habit of checking it frequently, the total cost to the entire Canadian market would be $30 million.

On one hand, the government tries to fix a problem that stems from ill-informed consumers. On the other, the market already provides a cheap alternative. Roaming data charges can be avoided simply by disabling that feature in the phone’s settings. I can do that with a BlackBerry in less than a minute. The take-home message for this government is, don’t fix it if there’s an app for it.

Lastly, I would touch on the renewal clause,

section 15. This is a particularly vague clause that could cost us dearly unless it is clarified. Today, once one’s fixed-term agreement is up, the contract usually becomes a month-to-month agreement on the same terms until such time as the user or the provider decides to terminate. It ensures a smooth transition out of a fixed-term contract into the freedom of no-strings attached service. Shy of including an automatic transition clause into the original agreement, the user would see his or her service cut the moment the contract runs out.

If they wanted to avoid such a headache, the user might need to sign a new month-to-month contract with his or her provider. No one can guarantee the same terms, prices or services the user subscribed to will be available the next time.

Putting it bluntly, this clause denies consumers the option of continuing on their present terms in a month-to-month agreement and gives everyone one more headache to deal with. I’m sure it’s not the minister’s intention, and I look forward to the corresponding amendments to

section 15.

During our discussion, I cited a friend of mine who has a phone, and I’m sure it’s three years that he has been working on the month-to-month contract. To many people, it doesn’t make sense, but for a lot of people, when the contract runs out, they just want to continue the service.

Most of us are leading busy lives and appreciate peace of mind. Not having to worry about your contract ending is, by all measures, an improvement in a consumer’s peace of mind.

Let me be clear: Automatic renewals for a fixed term longer than 30 days should not be allowed.

Law-making is not about taking shots in the dark or throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing if it sticks. Bill 82 needs to strike a very delicate balance between the interest of the consumer, the needs of the industry and the mandate of the CRTC. It seems to have been drafted in a hurry, rushed out of the gate before the media could focus on the CRTC consultations, and based on evidence that does not stand the test of reasonableness.

Furthermore, the principle behind the bill could well be applied to other telecommunications industries, including the provision of broadband Internet services.

Three case studies in the commissioner’s annual report deal not with smart phones but with Internet users who did not realize how much data they had been using and were hit by over-usage charges.

Once the Bill 82 media cow runs dry, the media will come up with band shock, specifically targeting the broadband sector. This isn’t a case of “we ought to have a law.” The laws that would truly reform the cellphone market in Canada can only be made in Ottawa. On our end, we can look out for our consumers and protect them against clear abuses and unreasonable charges, such as cancellation liabilities.

We in the PC caucus will ensure that this government does not let its new law-making instinct become biased against industry in order to score some brownie points with the Toronto Star.

Ten million people in this province will be affected by this law. The legislative precedent it sets will affect many more in other industries that are not yet regulated according to the principles of Bill 82. We must proceed carefully, listen to advice, examine every proposal and think outside the box.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill for the Canadian public, and we in the PC Party are saying that the committee stage will be very important. We need ample time to listen to consumers as well as the industry to make sure we don’t make errors that we will pay for in the future.

Being from the industry, I know that infrastructure investment is crucial in this regard. We don’t want to fall behind other countries in the world where there is sufficient investment in their infrastructure. We’re now moving to 4G service, which gives us all kinds of possibilities. In a lot of ways, coming from a rural area, I would like to see this industry regulated to encourage investment in areas where they do not have cell service today. Cell service today is a great alternative to broadband services in areas where wired service is not a possibility. It’s not as good and it’s not as cheap, but it’s an alternative, and it is becoming, as I said in my speech, an economic equalizer.

Areas without broadband service or cell service are really being held behind. I think that one area we can look at is making sure that all areas of this province are serviced to the maximum that we can afford. I believe we can do that more through enticing industry, private industry, to go out and service these areas through different plans, like the plan we have in eastern Ontario, through the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus. We’re looking at servicing all of eastern Ontario. More plans like that through western Ontario and northern Ontario would service the province well.

So I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry on his inaugural speech. I know that the member and the member from London–Fanshawe, when we were out at the cattlemen’s event earlier this week, talked about our large families. I come from a family of seven—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Hey, me too.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —and the member from London–Fanshawe from a family of six siblings. So we were talking about the struggles that our parents had trying to raise that many children and send them off to college and university. But I’m sure that your family and friends are very proud of you, and I thank you for sharing with us today your political and your work successes over the years.

I also have a moment here just to speak about the bill. I’ve got a little story about the cancellation piece, their not being up front when they tell you when your plan might be cancelled. I just happened to find myself on a deserted highway in Oregon, only to have no cell phone service because I was never told that, after you reached I think it was $300, your service would be cut off, whether or not you were behind in your bill. So here I was, in Oregon, at night, broken down, and I didn’t have any cell phone service.

When I contacted them later, I said, “You cut my service off.” They said, “Well, we sent you an email.” I said, “Well, I know. You may have, but, in fact, I didn’t have any email service, I didn’t have any phone service, and my vehicle wasn’t working.”

That’s one of the kind of hidden things that nobody discloses to you. So of course, from that point on, I actually had it billed to my credit card so that I didn’t find myself in that situation again.

So I look forward to further debate on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Peterborough.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Madam Speaker, it was a very, very thoughtful presentation this morning, the maiden speech for the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. He shared a lot of his personal experience and indeed his political experience.

I take great interest, of course—he talked about one of the most famous regiments during the Second World War, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. Many young men from Peterborough were members of that famous regiment. Indeed, I see my friend the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and not only was his father a very distinguished member of this House, but he was a very brave member of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders.

It’s ironic: Tomorrow, Madam Speaker, we celebrate the 68th anniversary of Normandy. It’s interesting, over the last number of years, Canadian history books on the Second World War have retitled a famous photo. Many of us will recall there’s a landing craft at Juno Beach which, for many decades, was attributed to the South Saskatchewan Regiment, but in recent years, that has now been relabelled, because we found out that, indeed, that was the landing craft of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. That correction has been made in Canadian history books.

Indeed, their history was very interesting, post-Normandy. They were involved, of course, in the decisive battle at Caen. Then they were instrumental during the famous closure of the Falaise Gap, which led to the advancement of the allied armies through France and, ultimately, for the SD&Gs to go into Holland and then into northern Germany.

In fact, the history of that regiment, centred in Cornwall, is unique. When you look at the battles and awards of honour after the Second World War, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders won a significant number of those battle honours in some of the toughest battles around. So I appreciate the member talking about that history.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to provide a few moments of comment on the inaugural speech for the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, and also his comments on Bill 82.

He’s my neighbour. He’s just east of my riding, and we deal with each other quite a lot. In fact, the member has a very distinguished career, coming to this place from being the mayor of South Glengarry. He brings with him this very calm, cool and collected way about him. He delivers—

Interjection: His demeanour.

Mr. Steve Clark: His demeanour, yes.

He mentioned his years with Bell, and I know that for a time he did work in my riding, in his younger, perhaps wilder days.

He brought forward a number of comments this morning on Bill 82 that I think are extremely important and I hope are dealt with during committee. I’m not a big fan of too many regulations. In fact, I favour education instead. For a time, in the mid-1990s, I was involved with the Internet business. I know that some of the points he made about cellphone shock with the bill were certainly evident as people became more comfortable with the Internet.

I found that when I was in that business, we had to spend a lot of time with people, educating them about the bills and the charges, to try to help them work through as they became more comfortable. This technology has evolved greatly over the years from when a cellular phone, or a car phone, as they were called at the time, had a huge box that would fill your trunk.

I believe that during committee stage, we really need to take into consideration some of Mr. McDonell’s comments and bring those forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comment?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I did want to make comments on Bill 82, the bill that’s being presented and debated, the Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2012.

One thing that came to my mind is how we’re communicating today, compared to just a few generations ago for my mom and dad. My parents communicated with the old rotary phone—it was black—and that was the most basic level of communication that we had. Of course, there was also the verbal. When you went to your friend’s house after school, you had to let them know where you were. Otherwise you called in, and hopefully they were home so that they knew your whereabouts.

My generation, my kids—I started with the computer and the big cellphone, the car phone that the other member just mentioned. It was really heavy to carry and very cumbersome. Today’s generation that we’re talking about now—I mean, you don’t see a child—maybe starting at the age of 13, they have their own cellphone, and that’s the way parents are communicating with their children and they’re keeping tabs on their children, so to speak. Where are their whereabouts? They don’t have to worry about calling home and Mom and Dad knowing their whereabouts. They can just give them a quick text.

The generation that we’re facing today, they are becoming dependent on this type of service. If we don’t have the contracts and the agreements that are going to be fair to consumers, so that the agreements have clarity and clairvoyance and the charges are reasonable, then it’s going to make it harder for people to stay in touch and be communicating. Also, it’s going to be difficult for people to actually have faith in that contract and that they’re not going to get ripped off, so to speak.

It has to be a fair contract, and the services that they’re getting—their payments, the cancellation fees—it has to be a fair system so people can afford to stay in communication with each other. It is an affordability issue, because that’s the way people are communicating in this generation. We have to look after that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to thank the honourable members from Welland, Peterborough, Leeds–Grenville and London–Fanshawe for their comments.

A couple of interesting points: The SD&G Highlanders is a famous regiment and one that’s very near and dear to residents of my community. He talked about the renaming of the ship at D-Day. It was through the perseverance of Bill Shearing, who was the honorary colonel, who noticed that. It took quite a few years, even though the physical evidence was overwhelming. It’s funny sometimes how the military can be very slow to change things.

The first Canadian recipient of the Victoria Cross was actually from my hometown and in that regiment: Claude Nunney, who had emigrated from Ireland. He must have had quite a distinguished career, because he went from private to sergeant a few times, and back and forth. At the time of the award, he was actually a private again. But his bravery was well noted and received—I think the only Canadian to receive three full battle awards, the Victoria Cross being one of them.

I know my time is short, but just on the cell bill and that type of technology and how it changes: It’s interesting. A few years ago, I was in a meeting in Montreal, and we were trying to figure out where the growth was going, and it was just killing our equipment. I went back home. My daughter was home from university, and she was watching a movie on her computer at the table. So I was talking to her and I said, “Where did you get the movie?” She said, “Oh, I’d like to watch a show but I have a class so I just downloaded it from the Internet.

It may take 10 hours, but it doesn’t really matter.” I said, “Well, how would you do it?” She said, “I just go to the website, click this and it’s done.” I got back to the meeting and I said, “We’re thinking this is tough to do? This is so easy that I’m surprised everybody’s not doing it.”

That’s just an example of where this technology is going, where the usage is going, but, probably more importantly, where we want to be with it.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I would like to introduce two people from my riding—I won’t hit on your parade earlier—Karen and Mike Vecchio are here from St. Thomas. Karen works for our MP Joe Preston and does a wonderful job. Mike Vecchio is a strong supporter of our community. I welcome them both here.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very pleased to introduce Christine Hart, who is here today. She’s the mum of Katie Mowat, a page from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who is page captain today. Christine is the former Liberal MPP for York East. She’s here to celebrate her daughter and we recognize her today.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to welcome Clifton Foo and Michael Anderson, constituents from my riding in the Speaker’s gallery, and I’ll be enjoying dinner with them.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mary Beth Walsh, who is in the members’ east gallery today, who is the mother of page Colin Walsh from the great riding of Peterborough.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m pleased to say today that a page from my riding, Anthonie Korstanje, is the page captain and he is joined today, to watch him exercise his duties as page captain, by his proud mum, Angela Korstanje, his dad, Joe Korstanje, his brother Joshua Korstanje and aunt Adrienne Hol. Welcome here to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to introduce Meghan Walker and Alison Dantis from the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors. They’re hosting a lunch reception today from the end of question period until 2 p.m., and I’d encourage all members to attend.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like members to welcome, from the Yukon, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Tourism and Culture, the Honourable Mike Nixon, who is in your Speaker’s gallery.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I take this opportunity to invite all members of the Legislature to welcome some dear friends who hail from the great and extremely well-served riding of Etobicoke North, and they are Mr. Jack Helferty, Ms. Pauline Helferty and future parliamentarians David and Nicolas Malcolm.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to introduce today in the public galleries some graduate students from McMaster University, with Dr. Henry Jacek.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome Mrs. Zezima’s grade 5 class from Oriole Park Junior Public School this morning, from my riding of St. Paul’s. The class is here this morning to watch question period and tour the Legislature.

Mr. Frank Klees: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Ted Greig in the west gallery. Ted is the husband of Neave Greig, who is my constituency assistant in Aurora. Welcome, Ted.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member for Peterborough.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This week 35 years ago, a young man joined us at the Ontario Legislature. The member from St. Catharines, Mr. Bradley, is celebrating 35 years as a distinguished member of the Ontario Legislature. Could we all rise for Mr. Bradley?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank the member for Peterborough for stirring it up.

On a personal note, I think that all of us would be so lucky to be able to serve the province of Ontario as this man has done and as all of us have on an ongoing basis. It is a testimony to the longevity of the member from St. Catharines.

That wasn’t a point of order and it’s out of order, so we’ll move on.

I too have some introductions to make. It is customary for the Speaker, so I will be repeating some of the invitations that have already gone through.

Christine Hart from York East in the 33rd and 34th Parliaments: We welcome Christine to the House. We thank you for being here.

Again, to reinforce what has already been done, we have in the Speaker’s gallery today the Honourable Mike Nixon, Minister of Tourism and Culture, Minister of Justice and the MLA for the riding of Porter Creek South, Yukon. Welcome.

One that I’m glad what you’ve all left me is, my other brother Joe is here again. Thank you, Joe.

We don’t know who the other guy is—oh, no, wait a minute; we do have to do that properly. What we have here is the former member from Elgin–Middlesex–London in the 37th, 38th, 39th and the Speaker of the House of the 39th Parliament, Mr. Steve Peters. Thank you for joining us, Steve.

I’m sure we all want to join Steve this afternoon when we hang him in the hallway. His official portrait will be unveiled this afternoon at 2 o’clock.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I just noticed that Rev. Dr. Brent Hawkes is here from Metropolitan Community Church. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the Ontario PCs remain very concerned about the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector under your leadership. We believe that better days are ahead if we make the right choices to get our fiscal house in order, to make energy reliable and affordable and to actually lower taxes and the red tape burden.

We saw 2,000 jobs lost on Friday at the Oshawa GM plant. The Chevy Equinox, Speaker, was an Ontario icon. If you drove the Equinox anywhere in North America, it was made here in Ontario, made by Oshawa workers and families. The announcement on Friday is that that production will now take place in Tennessee in a reopened plant.

Premier, isn’t this a clarion call that we need to change course? Why are we hemorrhaging jobs across the border into Tennessee? We want to see them working here in Ontario.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I appreciate the question raised by my honourable colleague, but I do want to once again gently confront him with the statement made by his honourable colleague who sits one, two, three, four to his left, who said, and I quote from the Toronto Sun, “Ontario’s auto bailout was a bad idea, and the province should have just stood aside and let Chrysler and General Motors go bankrupt.”

Speaker, we bring a decidedly different approach. We have, in fact, invested in the future of the auto sector in Ontario.

GM has invested in a new transmission line in St. Catharines, for 300 new jobs. They have invested $96 million to expand capacity at the CAMI plant. Toyota has created 400 new jobs, Speaker, at their Woodstock plant. Ford has put in place a third shift at their Essex engine plant; that’s 100 new jobs. Honda has added 400 jobs. Chrysler has invested $27 million in jobs—all since the recession, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the workers at GM in Oshawa were confronted Friday with the news that they would lose 2,000 jobs. These are good middle-class jobs that help to build those communities and build our province.

The problem is, this is not the only one. We’re seeing our manufacturing sector hollowed out. It’s not like it’s going over to Third World countries for cheap labour; it’s crossing the border into Quebec, into Tennessee, into Indiana. This is a significant problem, and you dismiss it with your silly games.

Let me tell you about the Chevy Impala as well. This is one of the most popular family cars in the US. It made Wall Street’s top 10 best-selling cars of all time: 14 million units sold. It was made here in Ontario, in Oshawa, but as of Friday the answer is: no more. It’s moving to Michigan.

Premier, why is this happening over and over again? Why are good jobs leaving Ontario and going to the United States or Quebec?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, it’s always good to get my honourable colleague’s perspective, but I think we should hear from a few others in the private sector. Bombardier, one of our strongest global champions—there was a speech delivered just last week on the occasion of Bombardier’s 20th anniversary in Ontario. This is what the CEO for Bombardier said: “We continue to believe that manufacturing in Ontario makes sound business sense and that it has a bright future. The province’s fundamental strengths create an excellent jurisdiction for innovative, capital-intensive manufacturing.

These strengths include a very skilled and adaptive workforce, a top-notch research infrastructure and a supportive policy environment. These are the reasons that brought” Bombardier “to Ontario and have kept us here.”

I’m with Bombardier. I’m with continuing growth.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’re missing my point altogether. We are listening to the private sector, and they’ve cast their votes: 300,000 manufacturing jobs have left our province under your leadership. Why have they done that?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development and Innovation, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Your skyrocketing hydro bills, your increasing swamp of red tape that bogs them down whenever they want to open up a new plant, expand a facility. It’s not simply the 2,000 jobs in Oshawa. That’s bad enough. But we saw in Timmins the Xstrata plant move 100 or so kilometres across the border into Quebec because of your energy policies. We saw recently the bearing maker Timken closing a plant in St. Thomas. Navistar closed their plant in Chatham and went to Indiana—675 jobs there; Cat out of London, heading to Indiana.

Premier, we’re hemorrhaging good jobs. These are jobs that build the middle class, give them security and help people climb the economic ladder. Isn’t this a clear signal that something has gone off the rails? We need a fresh approach: more reliable, affordable hydro, lower taxes and a pro-growth, pro-jobs government. Why don’t you understand this and why—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s hard to figure out where my honourable colleague is coming from, because on the one hand, he says that we need to do more to support economic growth and new jobs in Ontario; on the other hand, he says when it comes to partnering business, when push comes to shove, when it comes to standing up for the auto sector—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: When it comes to the southwestern Ontario economic development fund, he is opposed to that. Speaker, last week—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They don’t want to hear, but there is unavoidably more good news. Last week, Telus announced that their workforce, which has grown from zero to 8,000 since the year 2000—they’ve invested $22 billion since the year 2000—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Try again.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, just last Friday in Ottawa, Telus announced that they’re going to invest yet $650 million more to create 900 more jobs on top of the 8,000 they’ve created since the year 2000. The fact of the matter is that the economy is moving in the right direction.

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier on this theme of the hollowing out of our manufacturing and resource sector in Ontario. I’m incredulous that the Premier doesn’t even bat an eye at the loss of 2,000 good middle-class jobs in Oshawa and at what has happened in Timmins and southwestern Ontario. The Premier’s solution seems to be that we’re all going to go work down at the wind farm one day, we’re all going to work for the wind turbine company, but that has been a dramatic failure. I don’t think anybody believes the Premier that his HST tax increase created 600,000 jobs.

I don’t think anybody believes the Premier that his Feed-in Tariff program created 50,000 jobs; in fact, it’s costing us jobs. The Feed-in Tariff program is one of the most disastrous, wrong-headed, job-killing programs in the history of the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development and Innovation, the second time.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —we know that you’ll be signing a deal between Samsung and Six Nations in a disputed area. Premier, please tell me that you are reviewing this latest deal between Samsung and Six Nations outside of Caledonia.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think Ontarians could be forgiven for being confused on what position my honourable colleague takes from one day to the next. He says now that we need to do more to support the auto sector, but as I say, when push came to shove, when it came time to provide real economic support to protect—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —400,000 jobs-plus, he was missing in action. When it came to laying shape to our budget so that we could work together to build a stronger Ontario economy and create—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You promised 650,000 jobs, and we’re losing them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. The member from Nepean–Carleton. I will now start identifying individual members.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague from the Ottawa area is taking out her anger on her colleague to her immediate left, Speaker—me—today, and I just don’t think that’s fair.

Whether we’re going to support the auto sector or not, that’s a position which varies from day to day with my honourable colleague, as it does when it comes to the HST—by the way, a measure which was wholeheartedly endorsed by the auto sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, the only thing confusing, Speaker, is that the Premier, whose policies of high energy rates, more red tape and higher taxes have cost us 300,000 manufacturing jobs, wants to double down on policies that fail economic sense.

I want to talk particularly about your Samsung deal. The Samsung deal is a bad deal for Ontario families, and now, as part of your Samsung deal, you’re working out a contract with Samsung and Six Nations to build the world’s largest wind and solar projects on crown land, government-owned land, ORC land as well as disputed land, potentially. I remind you that there’s been an occupation in Caledonia now for six years. As part of your deal with Six Nations and Samsung, we’ll be seeing millions and millions of dollars, in fact $55 million, in payments going to Six Nations.

Before you proceed with your deal, Premier, don’t you think it’s time to say, “End the occupation. Get off the land before you get $55 million from Ontario”—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, it took us a while to get there, Speaker, but I thought this line of questioning had to do with strengthening the economy—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —and creating more jobs and building more opportunities for all Ontarians. I thought that’s what that line of questioning was, and that is an honourable line of questioning, Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will not shrink from our responsibility to continue to find ways to grow this economy. We will continue to aggressively pursue clean energy in Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will continue to find ways to work with our First Nations community and create opportunities for young people—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham, order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —growing up in those communities, just as we will for our young people—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Northumberland, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —growing up right across the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I take it the Premier’s answer to my question is no, that he won’t suspend this deal until he cleans up the six-year occupation in Caledonia.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Peterborough, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The problem is, Premier, that your Feed-in Tariff program, your expensive subsidies for wind and solar projects, is driving out good jobs like we had at GM—2,000 jobs gone. They are a major abrogation of local property rights, and split communities. And you have six years of occupation going on in Caledonia. This is a very deadly mix that actually is going to hurt job creation in the area and exacerbate an ongoing occupation on the Caledonia Douglas Creek Estates.

It seems to me simple: Before you proceed with this deal—in fact, we think it’s a bad deal altogether—say you won’t give the $55 million until we end the ongoing occupation at Douglas Creek Estates. Isn’t six years, Premier, quite long enough?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, it was my understanding there’s supposed to be some even tenuous connection between the beginning of a line of questions and the conclusion of the line of questions. We started off by talking about the economy and jobs; now we’re talking about an alleged occupation. But Speaker, let me respond to that. We will continue to bring goodwill to these circumstances. I will invite my honourable colleague to encourage his federal counterparts to roll up their sleeves, to work in earnest and to resolve a problem that predates Confederation, Speaker. In the meantime, we will do everything that we can to ensure that we bring goodwill and find common ground.

POWER PLANT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. We know that the OPA has offered a New York hedge fund more than $80 million to make your headaches with the Mississauga gas plant go away. They didn’t take the money, but Greenfield, the company that was building the plant, has been receiving public money. My question, Speaker, to the Premier is, how much has the government paid off to Greenfield so it can not build a power plant?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Last September, this party did make a commitment that we would not proceed with the gas plant in Mississauga on the site—a commitment, I might add, that was immediately confirmed and accepted by the two parties opposite. At no point have they ever suggested that they would not have done exactly what we’re doing.

There are a number of discussions and lawsuits at which the interests of the people of the province of Ontario are being represented. I look forward to a point at which we’re able to speak to the conclusion of the discussions from the various other proceedings.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, come to order—second time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, back to the Premier: The Minister of Energy has refused to talk about this fiasco at committee, and the government is stonewalling at every turn. But information is available on the public record. In court proceedings in New York, in May, lawyers for Greenfield stated, “OPA is advancing money to Greenfield to pay ... vendors.” How much has the government and the OPA paid to Greenfield so far?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My friend the leader is correct in suggesting that there are legal proceedings on both sides of the border relating to the decision not to proceed with the gas plant on the Mississauga site, a decision that reflected a lot of input from the community of Mississauga and the western GTA, a decision that was immediately accepted and endorsed by the leader’s party and the Leader of the Opposition. Those proceedings are ongoing. They are obviously very complex and technical.

The interests of the people of the province of Ontario are being represented through them, and it would be best to speak to them at the conclusion of the proceedings so we continue to protect the interests of the people of the province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, the correct thing about the statement of the minister is that New Democrats don’t support private power deals no matter where they take place, so we didn’t support that from day one.

The government claims, though, that it can’t comment about the specifics, but the facts are already in the public record. The government claims the public doesn’t need to know, but they’re spending the people’s money, not their own money. This is yet another example of a private power mess that’s making life more expensive for the people in this province who are picking up the tab and who are paying the bills.

If the government refuses to tell people how much money has been spent so far, will they let Ontario’s auditor review the mess and tell us how much of our money has been wasted?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Our position throughout is that we’ve listened very carefully to the people of Mississauga. The western GTA decided not to proceed with that plant, and the interests of the people of the province of Ontario, including the monetary interests, are being represented and protected at the proceedings on both sides of the border and in some separate, confidential, very sensitive negotiations and discussions. It would be unhelpful to speak to part of it, allegations of part of it because it would inevitably accrue to the detriment.

It would harm the interests of the families and businesses in Ontario, and we won’t do that. We’ll continue to protect and represent them and hope—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: —look forward to speaking to this when I’m in a better position to do so.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: With a protection like that, Speaker, we’re all in trouble.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. A review of the government’s local health integration networks was supposed to happen over two years ago. In fact, it was postponed until July 2012. So my question is a very simple one: When is it going to start?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. We are committed to reviewing the LHINs. I think it’s important that we do take a look and see what more we need to do to further strengthen the role of the LHINs in this province. We know that they have fundamentally changed how health care is delivered. We’re now seeing hospitals, Speaker, with balanced budgets. We’re seeing a much, much better integration of care—care that’s working for patients. So we will, of course, do what we are mandated to do when it comes to review of the LHINs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people are very worried about the state of Ontario’s health care. They see growing wait times and cuts at hospitals, doctors who are unable to see patients, and unelected, unaccountable LHINs making more and more decisions. The LHIN review is a chance for all parties to work together, to actually start facing the challenges in our health care system in a collective way. Will this government move forward with the LHIN review, or will they continue to do the same old “my way or the highway” kinds of approaches that certainly have not been working so far?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I want to make it very clear that we will be reviewing the LHINs as per the legislation, and we very much look forward to the constructive input from people in this Legislature; most importantly, though, from people out there in Ontario who have first-hand experience with our health care system. There’s nothing more important, in my opinion, about our transformation of health care than the integration of care so that it works for people. We have a wonderful health care system, but we know there’s more we can do and the LHINs are really driving the change in our health care system. I look forward to the input of the party opposite.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People stuck with long wait times or without a family doctor or home care support are really tired of being ignored. They know and we know that we can do better and that we need to do better, and the government can’t simply sweep the problems under the carpet and pretend that they’re not there. People are tired of an out-of-touch, arrogant government. They want to be heard and they want us to work together to actually tackle the challenges that we’re facing.

My question is very specific: Will the Premier commit today that no new legislation on LHINs will move forward unless the long-delayed review actually takes place first?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I released our action plan for health care in January. Important elements of that are in fact what the member opposite is talking about. We need to strengthen home care. We need to strengthen community care. We have too many people in our hospitals who would much prefer to be home in their own bed rather than in a hospital. It is the LHINs that are driving that integration that is best for people. So we absolutely look forward to the input from both parties opposite as we look to how we can continue to improve care for the people of this province.

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Premier: We know, whether it be militant confrontations or imposing wind turbines on unwilling communities, your knee-jerk reaction is to not only write a cheque but to give away the farm. Think of Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia; or handing over 300 acres of the Burtch correctional property to Six Nations; and now laundering land-lease money from crown land at South Cayuga to Six Nations, all to buy peace for the Samsung deal in Haldimand county.

Six Nations elected Chief Bill Montour, is quoted in the Teka newspaper: “Through this process, the province of Ontario has admitted that Six Nations has land ownership.”

Premier, there’s no land claim at South Cayuga. Why would you set the precedent of assigning land-lease money to Six Nations?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’m going to share the supplementary with my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. You know, the Samsung strategic investment in the province of Ontario presents a remarkable—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t like what I’m hearing.

Minister.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It presents a remarkable opportunity—an opportunity for the people of Ontario to receive the benefit of 16,000 jobs, $7 billion worth of investment, and three manufacturing facilities already set up in Tillsonburg, in Windsor and in Toronto, with another one to come. It also presents an opportunity for those with whom Samsung and their partners will contract, an opportunity to benefit from the investment. Six Nations has reached an agreement, an arrangement with Samsung, that will provide many long-term benefits to Six Nations over the years to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Premier, here’s your energy minister who had indicated the agreement has nothing to do with government. However, following your deal with Samsung and Six Nations, elected Chief Bill Montour said, “A letter from the Minister of Infrastructure states that the lease from the land surface will be turned over to Six Nations. That is unprecedented. They have always maintained that we have no right to that land.”

So which is it, Premier? Is the government involved in the agreement or not? Is this about handing over lease money to Six Nations or handing over crown land, all the while sticking Haldimand county with wind towers and property devaluations? As one of my constituents indicated, “They got the gold mine; we got the shaft.”

Premier, the chief has the letter. Why has this land-lease precedent been set?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite is talking about specifics, and I think the Minister of Energy has addressed those.

What I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the other thing that the member is talking about is a relationship and the relationship between government and First Nations, all of the First Nations in the Six Nations. I think what’s happening is, we’re the party that is implementing the recommendations of Ipperwash, as the Minister of Finance is saying. We are very clear that we need to work with all of the community and Six Nations. It’s extremely important to the future economic development in that community that the government have a good working relationship, that Samsung is able to develop this project. But to have a local member who is doing nothing but dividing and stirring the—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It has become evident to me that I will now start warning. You know: one warning only.

ARBITRATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

Finally, after weeks of silence, the minister and the president of the Ontario Medical Association met and talked. Today, staff from both sides are continuing those preliminary talks. New Democrats are happy to see that the conversation has resumed, but the government’s refusal of the OMA’s request for a conciliator is sort of baffling. Can the minister explain why her government is so opposed to allowing a conciliator to help reach an agreement with Ontario physicians?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I too am very pleased that the conversations are beginning to resume when it comes to achieving a negotiated arrangement with the Ontario Medical Association. I think the patients of this province expect government and the doctors to work together to land on what is right for the patients, Speaker.

We have made a decision. The decision is that we must address the most urgent priority in health care now, and that is, we need to strengthen community care; we need to strengthen home care.

We look forward to conversations with the doctors. We know we must reach an agreement, and I look forward to that happening.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I’m glad the minister knows that she has to reach an agreement, because the Canada Health Act is clear in recognizing the value of conciliation, but this government has chosen to ignore this guideline and impose a unilateral agreement.

Now that the government is taking steps to go back to the negotiation table, will she accept the assistance of a conciliator between the Ministry of Health and the OMA?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again I thank the member for the question. I really would like to know what the NDP position is on this aspect of our budget, Speaker.

I think we all recognize that we are working very hard to get back to balance. All of us are doing our job, and that includes those who work in health care. We are choosing to protect the expenditures on physician compensation. We’ve invested in an increase of 85% since we came to office in 2003. We believe that any additional new money must be invested where it will make the greatest difference for patients, and that is in community care and home care.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Education. As you know, I sit on the Standing Committee on Social Policy. I’ve been there for the public hearings on Bill 13 and Bill 14, and I’ve been there for Bill 13, the Accepting Schools Act.

A lot of public attention is being paid to the part of the bill to allow gay-straight alliances in Ontario schools. Just last Friday, I went to visit a school in my riding. It’s a great high school called Blakelock. They have a GSA there in the riding. The kids basically said to me, “We don’t know what the adults are all upset about here. We’ve been doing this for five years, and it’s working.”

Will the minister please tell this House clearly what Bill 13 says about gay-straight alliances?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Education.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you to the member for Oakville, who worked hard on this important piece of legislation.

During public hearings on Bill 13, we heard a number of deputations from Ontarians, from students, from teachers, from groups who work with youth and who are focused on creating a more safe and inclusive society. We heard from those deputants that it was important to ensure that students who want to establish a group like a gay-straight alliance in their school be supported to do that. We believe it’s not up to us at Queen’s Park to tell students how to name their clubs but that schools and school boards shouldn’t prevent students from using the words that matter to them, like the students at Blakelock have chosen to do.

That doesn’t mean that our government will force schools to have a GSA or a specific name of a student club. What we’re saying here is that, if passed, Bill 13 will mandate that all schools will have to support students like those at Blakelock if they wish to form a student-led support group. They might call it the Rainbow Club, they might call it Born Equal or an anti-homophobia alliance. It’s their club, after all, Speaker, and that’s the way it should be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I think a number of us were really proud to speak yesterday during third reading debate on this bill. I talked about how I believe every generation improves upon the conduct of the past. I spoke about how much I learned from my own son when he was young about accepting and embracing people who are different, and I spoke about how I believe that kids lead us adults in social change.

Minister, I believe the Accepting Schools Act makes a very important statement. That statement is, bullying is simply not acceptable in our schools and that homophobic bullying also has no place in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, how does this bill help fight LGBTQ bullying in our schools?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to commend the member from Oakville for his remarks on third reading debate yesterday. I agree there’s nothing radical about ensuring that students get the support that they need, and that’s what the Accepting Schools Act is all about. Evidence and experience show us that peer-to-peer support like GSAs makes kids feel more accepted at school. That connection leads to academic success, and that’s what our schools are all about.

People for Education, in their recent report, found that 88% of students agree that students should have the right to establish gay-straight alliances at school. Many, many individuals, including John Tory, the former leader of the PC Party, have spoken in support of GSAs and kids being able to choose the name.

Last week, Ryerson University hosted a summit on LGBTQ suicides, sponsored by TD Bank. They brought experts from North America, and they came to discuss the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ youth. It’s our responsibility to fight that in our schools, and that’s what Bill 13—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. This weekly report prepared for cabinet provides an ongoing update of incidents involving our air ambulance service—accounts of pilots not available, paramedics not available, confused dispatch calls. According to the Premier, he doesn’t recall ever seeing this report, and so apparently the Minister of Health hasn’t thought it important enough to distribute to her cabinet colleagues.

If the Premier and his cabinet don’t consider this important enough, I would suggest it would be good mandatory reading for every member of the Legislature and the public. Will the Premier agree to make this weekly report public so that we can know what’s going on at Ornge without having to wait for brown envelopes from frustrated civil servants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, you know, when it comes to who’s got credibility on this issue, we have the member from Newmarket–Aurora who is actually calling into question the credibility of the chief coroner of the province.

It might be helpful to review the qualifications of the chief coroner of Ontario, Dr. Andrew McCallum. He’s a graduate of McMaster University’s school of medicine. He served in the Canadian Forces as a medical officer and flight surgeon. He trained in emergency medicine at the University of Toronto. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He was a regional supervising coroner for eastern Ontario, adjunct associate professor of emergency medicine at Queen’s University—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —chief of emergency medicine and chief of staff at Hamilton Health Sciences—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark will withdraw.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ll withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): He is now warned.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —and an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University.

Speaker, the member opposite is attacking the credibility and the ability of Dr. McCallum—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I’m not sure which question the minister is answering, but it’s not mine. And I will forgive the minister, because sometimes her notes get mixed up.

With every day that passes, the Premier, his minister and his cabinet are owning the scandal and mismanagement at Ornge. There’s no reason for that. They boast of change, but most of the bodies who created the mess are still there. Rather than making meaningful change, we get meaningless legislation and redrafting of agreements.

Speaker, that’s why 20 pilots and 11 aircraft engineers have left Ornge since January of this year.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order.

Mr. Frank Klees: They see that nothing of consequence has changed, and they refuse to be part of a dysfunctional organization. The consequences will be an exodus of more good front-line people. When will the Premier admit—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: —that his minister is incapable of managing this file?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, it’s clear that the member opposite is calling into question the professionals who are responsible for managing our health care system. He is doing this for clearly what is partisan political gain.

I think the people of this province are actually interested in knowing if Ornge is doing what they are supposed to be doing. Just yesterday, 49 people were transported by Ornge; 42 patients were transported from one facility to another, six by land ambulance; six babies, pediatric patients, were transported by Ornge; and there was one incident where a helicopter attended to a scene.

Speaker, the front-line staff at Ornge are doing their job, despite the ongoing attacks of the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. When asked two weeks ago about the need to consult with the horse racing industry, the Minister of Finance claimed that he met with the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association, saying that he “sought their advice on how to move forward.” In fact, the minister was referring to a $500-a-head fundraiser he had held the previous night, and the individual he met with did not speak on behalf of OHRIA.

Does the Minister of Agriculture agree with the Minister of Finance’s new definition of consultation?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, obviously if you want to know the Minister of Finance’s position, you’ll have to ask him.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would offer all cabinet ministers and the Premier the advice that you just simply defer, as opposed to making any comments.

The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the OLG have, in fact, met with representatives of OHRIA throughout the process. I have met with them throughout the process. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and I will have a very significant announcement with respect to transition assistance to the industry in the very near future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, the folks in the horse racing industry are waiting to hear from their Minister of Agriculture as to the effects of this on rural Ontario. Obviously he’s not involved in any of the consultations either.

The government has promised to start consultations on the horse racing industry—something they should have done when they put thousands of jobs at stake—but they’ve yet to provide a firm date. People in the horse racing industry have only heard words like “in due course.” That’s simply not good enough.

When exactly will the Minister of Agriculture give these hard-working, dedicated business owners a date for consultations so they can make the business decisions they need to make?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the horse racing industry, in fact, have said things about the member opposite. He promised them, in public, that the NDP would support more money for the industry, and then, when push came to shove, they didn’t. You stood publicly at Windsor Raceway and you said that you, as part of the deal, would demand funding, and they didn’t. We have said from the beginning there will be transitional funding to the industry.

The member’s trying to have it both ways. He goes out in public and promises one thing, and he comes in the House—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I withdraw.

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

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: He comes to the House, and not only do they not put something in the budget deal, they don’t even vote for the budget, for or against it. They’re trying to have it both ways.

We have undertaken transition funding. The Minister of Agriculture and I will have more to say about that in the very near future.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: My question’s for the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation. Minister, we know that job growth and economic recovery can only come if jurisdictions can demonstrate and harness innovation and entrepreneurship in order to boost growth and employment.

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a great event here in Toronto on behalf of our University of Windsor Centre for Engineering Innovation—and I often meet with innovators and businesses in Windsor. We know and believe that a strong, innovative economy that stimulates growth and creates high-quality jobs is critical if Ontario’s economy is going to remain competitive. The opposition continues to criticize our approach to the economy and job creation.

Minister, you have said that you have an optimistic forecast for the future of Ontario’s economy. Can you tell me specifically: What is the government doing to help entrepreneurs drive innovation and expand their companies?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the question. I want to say that I’m very optimistic about Ontario’s economic growth potential, driven very much by the innovative spirit of our business sector. Our Premier launched the province’s innovation agenda in 2005, and through it developed the Ontario Network of Excellence. This is a province-wide innovation initiative that helps—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew is now warned.

Hon. Brad Duguid: —entrepreneurs grow their ideas into businesses. No matter where Ontario’s technology-based businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers are located, Ontario’s Network of Excellence provides access to the programs and services that they need to bring their ideas to market. By providing a team of experienced advisers, these centres help businesses through coaching, mentorship and assisting with setting goals.

I’m very proud, Mr. Speaker, that through the Ontario Network of Excellence, all kinds of innovators are collaborating to spark new ideas across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Thanks for the answer, Minister. We know that today’s globalized economy requires companies that are forward-thinking, agile and able to compete internationally.

The question that we often get asked is, in terms of yearning to access international markets and reach new customers, how do we bring those innovative products to market? What is our government doing to help companies expand into the global market and what evidence is there to show that the work of the Ontario Network of Excellence is actually working?

Hon. Brad Duguid: That is a really good question. Let me tell you about InGamer Fantasy Inc. Just three years ago, this company—which illustrates precisely how our province is a leader in innovation. InGamer is a social fantasy sports game played during live sporting events. InGamer’s co-founders were film and television producers, and neither had business backgrounds, but through the Ontario Network of Excellence, they were able to bring InGamer to the marketplace.

InGamer is currently expanding its product offering in an effort to increase sales and distribution in preparation for the US launch in September. No one else in North America does what InGamer does. In fact, InGamer is the only digital tech company in the world represented by IMG, the world’s largest independent producer and distributor of sports programming.

InGamer is just one example of how we’ve worked to foster innovation through Ontario’s Network of Excellence. We wish them success in their US launch.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Minister of Health: It was reported that the minister expressed considerable disbelief at revelations that the Mazza executive suite was still very much intact.

Let me introduce her to those Mazza loyalists, who were very much part of the Mazza scheme, and whose continued presence in the crystal palace are responsible for the exodus of pilots, paramedics and aircraft engineers who want nothing to do with the ongoing incompetence at Ornge: Dr.

Sawadsky, the medical director who signed off on the medical interiors of the AW139s and who, the deputy minister testified, misled the ministry; and Steven Farquhar, the vice-president of operations, who was responsible for, among many other things, the decisions of signing off on those medical interiors, the downstaffing and launch policies and the mismanagement of the critical care land ambulance program. These are the very individuals who have put patients’ lives at risk.

How can the minister claim that there’s a new management team when there’s not?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there is no question that there is a new board of directors in place at Ornge. There is no question about it that the senior leadership at Ornge is gone and is being replaced with new senior leadership.

There is also no question that the party opposite has been fully informed of changes at Ornge. Guy Giorno, Kelly Mitchell, Tom Lepine, Jacob Blum, Lynne Golding—I’m sorry, not Lepine—a number of prominent Conservatives have made it their business, Speaker, and have been handsomely paid to ensure that the members opposite actually were informed of changes at Ornge.

We are determined to continue to improve care at Ornge. We need Bill 50 to pass.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Just a little bit of advice for the minister: Perhaps she could consider asking for a list of the executives and managers responsible for medical and operational decisions before she took her so-called swift and decisive action. Then she could compare that to the current list of executives and managers who are responsible for those same responsibilities today.

Here are the names that she’ll find on both: Dr. Bruce Sawadsky, medical director; Steve Farquhar, COO; Sandra Wilkie, quality assurance; Lindsey White, deputy director; Mark Repic, operations manager; Lisa Rutledge, operations manager. This is the reason that 20 pilots, 11 aircraft engineers and numerous paramedics have abandoned the embattled Ornge group since January of this past year: because they have seen that nothing has changed, and there are deep consequences.

This minister doesn’t have control of her file. She needs to resign. Will you do it today?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I understand that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West is now warned.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —the party opposite is playing a political game for partisan advantage. I can tell you that there are many issues in health care that I think would benefit from questions from the members opposite, but they continue to ask questions only on one narrow part—very important, but one part of our health care system.

I think it’s important that we let the committee do its work. We have had 30 witnesses; the committee has sat for 24 hours. There are more hearings scheduled. Some of the witnesses being scheduled for upcoming hearings include Tony Clement, the former Minister of Health for the province of Ontario; Jacob Blum, former Ornge CFO; and Bruce Tavender, Ornge VP of finance. A number of people, Speaker, are coming and testifying.

I look forward to the committee completing its work, but I absolutely must ask: Why are the members opposite blocking Bill 50? It’s important legislation. We need it to pass.

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. For over a week, the people of Thunder Bay have seen the worst of nature and the best of their neighbours. Record rainfall caused extensive flooding damage to private property and to public infrastructure. The people of Thunder Bay have pulled together to make the best out of a very bad situation, but they need a helping hand immediately from the province.

There’s no question that Thunder Bay is a disaster area. When can city officials expect money to begin flowing to Thunder Bay from the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take the opportunity—and I’m grateful that my honourable colleague has raised this matter—to commend the people of Thunder Bay and the surrounding communities who have worked so hard and pulled so well together at a time of great challenge.

I took the opportunity to speak with the mayor of Thunder Bay a few days ago and to encourage him and his council to apply for—I think they call it ODRAP—the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program. The council must pass a resolution in order to qualify for that.

We are, at this point in time, working with the community. The mayor placed a great deal of emphasis on a particular water treatment plant that represents a real challenge for them financially. I can say that we will continue to work hand in hand with the community to ensure that they get the support that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last week, I wrote to the Premier’s office calling for quick relief for flood-damaged Thunder Bay. City officials, first responders, utility crews and workers at the Atlantic Street pumping station have done an amazing job keeping people safe during the crisis.

The Red Cross, the Salvation Army, community groups and business associations are doing their part on the ground in that community. Neighbours are helping neighbours. When will the government step in with funding from the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program so that the people of Thunder Bay can get back to rebuilding their community?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to say that, as the Premier said, we are very much working with the people of Thunder Bay and the local members are working with their community. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is working with Emergency Management Ontario. Their assessment is going on. That’s what needs to happen before the applications to the ODRAP fund can take place.

There’s actually nothing to prevent the city of Thunder Bay from taking action immediately, which I know that they are doing. But the assessments have to go on in order for the ODRAP fund to kick in. That’s the process and what I am making sure—and I speak with my officials regularly on this. Our people are on the ground; Emergency Management Ontario is on the ground. Those assess