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

June 6, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Jun-06 (PDF)

L062 - Wed 6 Jun 2012 / Mer 6 jun 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 June 2012 Mercredi 6 juin 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POWER PLANT

POWER PLANT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HUNTING AND FISHING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CHILDHOOD OBESITY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

MERCURY POISONING

FIRST NATIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

AUTISM TREATMENT

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CONCERNS IN PERTH–WELLINGTON

EVENTS IN KIRKLAND LAKE

TREE CANOPY

D-DAY ANNIVERSARY

BOOK PUBLISHERS

ONTARIO CRAFT BEER WEEK

MINING VIDEO AWARDS

DARSHAN SINGH BAINS

FLOODING IN THUNDER BAY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES GRANDS LACS

BALANCED BUDGET

AND DEBT LIMIT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR

L’ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

ET LA LIMITATION DE LA DETTE

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(BLOCKER PADS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ÉDUCATION (BLOQUEURS)

GREAT LAKES SHORELINE

RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE DROIT DE PASSAGE

SUR LE LITTORAL DES GRANDS LACS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PROTECTION OF GREAT LAKES

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY /

JOURNÉE NATIONALE

DES AUTOCHTONES

ITALIAN HERITAGE MONTH

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PROTECTION OF GREAT LAKES

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

ITALIAN HERITAGE MONTH

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

PROTECTION OF GREAT LAKES

ITALIAN HERITAGE MONTH

VISITORS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK /

SEMAINE DE SENSIBILISATION

AU HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL

PETITIONS

BAITFISH INDUSTRY

ONTARIO PLACE

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HYDRO RATES

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

AIR QUALITY

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

CLIMATE CHANGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. 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 June 5, 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. Rosario Marchese: Before I start, I would like unanimous consent to stand down our lead.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Trinity–Spadina has asked for unanimous consent to stand down the lead. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you very much, Speaker and members.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You owe me, Rosie.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I was going to do my speech anyway.

Speaker, I just want to thank everybody for joining in this political forum, political channel. We are on live. It’s 9:05 in the morning and it’s June 6 on a Wednesday morning. It’s good to have an opportunity to speak to this bill. It’s rare that members of the opposition speak to a bill where we say it’s a good bill. There are other elements that could be added to the bill, but it is a good bill that even—even—Tories and even New Democrats are going to, I suspect, support because it’s a good thing.

Cellular phone services is the business category for which the Better Business Bureau in Canada has processed the most complaints this year, and complaints about cellphones and long-distance charges consistently appear on the Ministry of Consumer Services’s annual list of top 10 consumer complaints.

When you look at this history, is it any wonder that we have a bill here, introduced by the former member from Sault Ste. Marie, to give him credit—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Former member? He’s still the member.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Did I say “former”?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: From the member from Sault Ste. Marie, to give him credit, and later taken up by—

Mr. John Yakabuski: That was pointed out to you by the former member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Who is still here.

Is it any wonder that the government finally took it on and made the bill its own?

We think it’s a good thing, because customers of these kinds of services are left on their own. When they have a grievance, they are on their own trying to solve the problem, which is very difficult in a market that’s controlled by four major companies, now five. When you’re up against these big guys, mostly, I suspect, the legal costs to defend yourself are incredibly high. The little guy is going to have to do that on his own: call the company, complain, spend hours trying to resolve a problem that generally never gets resolved because there’s never anyone to go to to solve it quickly.

It reminds me of the bill that I’m trying to introduce on condominium owner protection. It’s a similar kind of problem, because when people have a complaint, like condominium owners, like people who own wireless or cellular phones, unless you have a place where you can go and quickly resolve a dispute, you’ve got to go to court—and nobody goes to court. We know this. For four years I’ve been trying to do the same thing on condominiums.

People who buy into a condominium have a contract they’ve got to read called declarations, most of which are incomprehensible to the ordinary homo sapiens that cannot read those agreements, legal agreements which are intended to confuse and make it so that people do not read them. It is deliberately done in such a way that the unsuspecting buyer, whether it’s of a cellular phone or a condominium, doesn’t know what to do and will not read those contracts until it becomes a problem. Same problemo, condo owner—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Cellphones used to be the same size as condominiums.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Right, right. The Speaker is already up. You see what you’re doing?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d just like to remind the member as he sits down that the conversation doesn’t go between you two. It goes through the Chair. So could you fix that up for us? Thank you very much.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you very much. We don’t need additional help from the other people in the chairs. Thank you.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: There used to be a time, through you, Speaker, when we had some flexibility in this place, a little give-and-take, which made this place a little more exciting to be in as opposed to this soldier-like quality that is now instilled by some Speakers that force us—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would suggest that the Hollywood production stop. I think criticizing the Chair is not a good thing to do and could be a big error on your part. I suggest you withdraw that last comment.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I withdraw the comment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: There was a time. How things change in this place. You do what you can. What else can you do? I’d like to have a little fun in this place. I do, and so do many other people in this place when they are in this place, debating.

When you look at these contracts, these wireless agreements, they are deliberately complex. It is intended that people do not read them, and they do not, by and large, read them until they’re faced with a problem, and then they realize, “My God.” You try to resolve it, and usually it doesn’t work. So having a bill where the supplier is required to disclose information to a consumer under this act in a way that is clear, comprehensive and prominent, and it will have to deliver the information in a way that is clear to the consumer, is a good thing.

It’s what we expect of any company dealing with any consumer around any particular service: that the agreements are clear, comprehensive and prominent, meaning people actually see them and are able to read them in a way that isn’t hard.

Further, when the information on pricing is provided in the advertising of the services, the supplier has to advertise the all-inclusive price for the service before the HST, and this all-inclusive cost has to be the most prominent cost into the advertising. What could be wrong with that? It’s so obvious. You would think they ought to have done that ages ago—but didn’t. It’s before us now and it’s good.

The supplier has to ensure that the agreement is in writing and that it discloses the name of the consumer, the name and contact information of the supplier, the date of the agreement, term of agreement, expiry date of agreement, a description that itemizes each service, a statement indicating whether any of the goods provided within the agreement are subject to any technological or physical features that restrict their functioning, the terms and methods of payments, the total amount paid by the consumer before entering into the agreement, the minimum amount payable by the consumer for each billing period, the manner of calculating the amounts that the consumer is required to pay to the supplier if the consumer cancels the agreement.

It’s good.

It’s what we expect governments to do: to protect the consumer. It’s what we expect the government to do when we’re dealing with 1.3 million condominium owners who face the same problem and do not have the same consumer protection. It’s the same thing. Finally, we have a bill that deals with consumer protection for wireless agreements but we do not have the same deal, the same agreement, a similar kind of bill, that protects 1.3 million condominium owners who have no consumer protection at all.

There is a measure here that says, “If the consumer cancels a wireless agreement” in compliance with this act and the supplier demands payment, “the consumer may commence an action in the Superior Court of Justice....” I thought, when I saw this, “Hmm, how does someone take these big guys to court?” I thought, “This is an enabling piece of legislation, though where there is a disagreement, a consumer can go to court.” But you’ve got to understand, when you’ve got a big guy with billions of dollars versus a little guy earning $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 taking them to the Supreme Court—“Who’s going to win?” I thought to myself, on the one hand.

On the other, it says that “the court may order exemplary or punitive damages or whatever other relief that the court considers proper” should the individual take it to court—which is good, because it’s a way of obviously undermining, potentially, the fact that those who have big loads of money could lose a few dollars in the process of that legal fight. But it still requires people to actually take them to court.

But we’ve got an uneven playing field between the little guy, who earns so little, and these big wireless companies, cellular companies, that earn in the billions of dollars by way of their company profits, and I’m not sure whether or not people eventually, if there’s a disagreement, are going to go to court. It allows for people to be able to defend themselves, which is better than nothing, and the penalties are a little bit higher than they used to be, where, if a corporation is convicted under this act, it “is liable to a fine of not more than $250,000.” Is that a deterrent? I don’t know.

But it’s bigger than before in terms of the penalty. I’m not sure whether for billionaires $250,000 is that much of a deterrent, but God bless, it’s better than nothing. And the demand that these contracts become “clear, comprehensive and prominent” is a good thing.

So yes, I have to say to the government that when Canadian consumers pay the highest minimum monthly charge for cellphone services out of the 11 countries that were studied, it’s about time that you did this. It’s important that the government learns to respond to other similar problems that other consumers face in society. That is why I made reference to condominium owners who are not getting the same protection, for whom I have fought for four years, introducing bills in this Legislature that I am persuaded the government is listening to, but not by much.

Because they haven’t moved one single inch in protecting condo owners, those consumers, from bad developers in particular. They deserve, in my mind, the same respect. While some of you are discussing this in your caucus debates, I’m not sure whether my bill is ever going to make it to third reading debate, let alone consideration by the government. I’m hoping that we’re going to get hearings on that bill, but who knows? But at least this bill appears to move forward, because it has the support of the government and the other opposition party, so I say, God bless.

Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve said enough on the bill. Thank you.

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to speak on Bill 82. I fully agree with the member from Trinity–Spadina that it’s a good bill. I was at a community event this past weekend in my riding, and I met lots of constituents who expressed their happiness, that it is good that the government has taken action and we have introduced Bill 82, because it deals with cellphone agreements. It will help cellphone agreements and contracts to be more fair, and the agreements will be, if this bill is passed, in more clear, plain, easy-to-understand language. At the same time this bill helps to reduce costs, cap cancellation fees, prevent automatic renewals etc.

I really appreciate members’ sincere comments that it is a good bill. The people, my constituents, were telling me that they cannot understand why this will not have all-party support and be passed quickly. Thank you.

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

Interjection: Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: We look a lot alike; what can I say? Anyway, I think he’s actually younger than I am, but he’s a very, very prominent person.

Anyway, the member from Trinity–Spadina, I believe, usually brings a fair amount of enthusiasm to the discussion. I know, Speaker, that perhaps his style is, as you say, often theatrical, but the content is definitely there.

I think if I look at the work that David Orazietti has done on this bill, Mr. Orazietti’s intent here—Minister Best was kind enough to recognize that—I commend him for doing that.

Now the deal is, I’ve really never heard too many complaints about this, to be honest. The only one I’ve heard is when—I had a couple, a retired couple, I gather, and they were in Florida for a month. They were phoning home every day and maybe getting calls from home about things going on in the neighbourhood etc., from their family. When they got home, they got this huge roaming charge. They were quite shocked; I think it was like two grand or something.

Now, in my role—and I’m sure any MPP would take the occasion to bring it to the attention of the minister. But it is a contract, and there’s a reciprocal responsibility when you sign a contract, even though what I like about this

part is to have the plain-language provision in the legislation. That’s important because a lot of these contracts are drawn up and it’s in fine print and you assume it’s a trustworthy agreement. I think openness, transparency and accountability are important in a contract, in a relationship. But even when I look at some of the young people today, they’re on the phone all the time. Do you understand? I walk up from the GO Train often and I see them looking at their phones.

I think it’s a consumer protection issue and I believe it’s the right thing to do, to have full, open disclosure.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m pleased to stand this morning, as always, on behalf of the good folks of Davenport and speak to this bill, Bill 82. I also believe that I can support this, and our party will be supporting this, because this is a step in the right direction in terms of consumer protection and fairness.

So I would support this absolutely. I think there are other steps that we need to take. As my friend from Trinity–Spadina was saying, trying to make this a level playing field when it comes to holding condo developers accountable, too—this is another place where we’d like to move forward, where people in Davenport definitely need the support of government on their side to make sure that they’re not the victims of predatory developers or corporations.

The issue of, as our friend from Durham was saying, the roaming charges is something I’ve heard constantly, where people rack up hundreds and hundreds of dollars in fees that they had no idea they were accumulating, and I’d like to make sure that this bill includes language that would enforce that, so that people know that if they’re travelling abroad, they might suffer from roaming charges. I hope that we can tighten that up as well. But generally I support this bill. Thank you, Speaker.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Just before I get a chance to make some comments on the remarks from the member for Trinity–Spadina, I think all of us would recognize that there are commemorative services all across Canada today. It’s the 68th anniversary of the invasion in Normandy. Elements of the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force stormed Juno Beach, part of one of the greatest military battles in the history of mankind. I know all of us want to remember, because we’re here today because of their brave sacrifices.

As I said, the work of the member for Trinity–Spadina, the work of the member for Sault Ste. Marie, the work of the Minister of Consumer Affairs and indeed the work of my good friend from Prince Edward–Hastings—all of us coming together can make this a really strong consumer protection bill. We all know, whether you’ve been in municipal politics or here at the Legislature, you constantly get inquiries about organizations ripping off consumers. We can halt that here today with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Trinity–Spadina has two minutes.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I thank the members for their comments. I know the member from Durham said he hasn’t received too many complaints, but I think people have, and that’s why I began with a history and talked about the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, which reports that complaints about wireless carriers comprise 52% of all the complaints. This is huge. It’s not as if we’re not hearing about it. They are hearing about it, and we are too. That’s why I wanted to give that bit of history.

I do agree with the members from Durham and Davenport, where they talked about roaming charges. That is one of the issues I wanted to touch upon, and this is where I think we can, in committee, add that additional element that has been left out of this bill, because roaming charges are yet another big problem that people complain about, and the government has left that out. That will give us an opportunity, as the member from Peterborough said, to come together, all three political parties. I think we could have come together if you had included it in the original draft, but we can still come together when we get together in committee, to deal with the roaming charges in particular.

To the member from Mississauga South, when she says people in her riding cannot understand why there is no three-party support—I think we have three-party support and I think all other amendments are possible. But I also say to the member from Mississauga South that the people in my riding in condominiums are saying the same thing to you and to your party when we talk about people not being able to understand why the Liberal caucus in particular doesn’t support consumer amendments to the condo act that would make their life a little bit easier, and they have been waiting for a long, long time. So I’m urging the member from Mississauga South to take that into account as well. Merci.

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to speak on Bill 82. First of all, I would like to thank my colleague the Minister of Consumer Services for bringing this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, wireless services are an $18-billion industry that pervades all of our lives. With the advancements in technology, this world has become flat. This world is changing every moment, and this change is impacting all of us. This change has also made us dependent on wireless services. If we look around, in every walk of life we have become dependent on iPhones, iPads, tablets, BlackBerrys. If we do not get connected to our BlackBerrys for, say, 10 or 15 minutes, we feel like we have lost something.

I would also like to share with the House that this bill has a lot of independent support as well. As I said earlier, this past weekend I was at a community event in my riding. I met lots of my constituents who were very happy that our government has introduced Bill 82. In the past, they have expressed their concerns about cellphone contracts. Many have said they are in very fine print; it’s hard to read and it’s hard to understand. Some have said that the terms of the contracts are so complex that you need legal counsel to interpret them. So they were all very happy that our government has taken action.

This is a pocketbook issue. Consumers want our government to address this. This bill contains measures that will help reduce costs, cap cancellation fees, prevent automatic renewals and make cellphone contracts simpler, in plain language, easy and clear language, which will be very helpful for consumers to understand.

Today I would like to speak to the benefits of this proposed legislation. When we look at the provisions in this bill, the benefits to Ontario consumers are enormous and they are very clear as well. If passed, this bill will allow customers to cancel their agreements at any time and with modest cancellation fees. Four other provinces—Quebec, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia—have introduced similar provisions. With a consistent approach across provinces, we can facilitate greater industry compliance, ultimately benefitting the consumer.

Companies will be required to clearly disclose which services are included and the minimum cost of an agreement, as well as the added costs that would be charged when additional services are used. The terms must be clear, comprehensible and prominent, and they must include specific information on roaming charges and cellphone logs.

The bill also requires companies to have agreements that use clear language, as I said earlier, with full disclosure so consumers understand what they are getting into and what they are agreeing to. This level of disclosure is essential for consumer protection. Customers must understand what they are getting before and after making any agreement.

Companies will need to get a customer’s express consent before renewing, extending or amending a fixed-term contract. Contracts will no longer be renewed automatically, without the customer’s consent. When we look at today’s market, we find that simply asking for a change to an agreement can result in the agreement being extended or renewed. The bill says that agreeing to a change in service is not the same as agreeing to an automatic extension or renewal. The customer must be asked if they want to renew and the customer must say yes before this takes place.

We are aiming to reduce cell shock by enforcing all-inclusive price advertising, requiring providers to advertise with the total of all costs and fees disclosed most prominently in any price advertising. If the all-in price is advertised, there can be no surprises when the bill arrives.

This legislation, if passed, will result in strong, enforceable remedies, making it an offence for wireless services providers to charge for payments they are not entitled to. If a service provider owes a refund to a customer, the customer has the right to sue the provider to recover the amount owed to them, and they will have the right to claim three times the amount of a refund that is owed. If this bill is passed, it will offer some of the strictest penalties of all the Canadian provinces.

The proposed legislation also prohibits billing for services that a customer cannot use. If a wireless device is not working and is still under warranty, the provider cannot charge for services a customer cannot use because the device is being repaired, nor can they can they charge for a loaner if one is provided.

Many consumers object to paying extra for services they did not know would cost them extra if used. The proposed law requires wireless companies to have a system in place to notify customers when they are close to their user limits, so that the customer is aware that further use may result in additional costs. And they must disclose these cost details to the customer before any agreement is signed.

If the bill is passed, implementation of this legislation will include a strategic enforcement approach and a proactive communications plan to ensure that consumers are fully aware of the changes and their rights. If this bill becomes law, Mr. Speaker, it will take effect a full six months after royal assent. The six-month implementation period will give companies enough time to prepare their systems to comply with the new law.

When it comes into force, the new act will apply to all new agreements. It will also apply to all service contract transactions, like renewals, that may already be in progress. It will also apply to existing contracts that are changed after the date it comes into force.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that telecommunications is a federal responsibility, while consumer protection is a matter for the provinces. For this reason, the bill focuses exclusively on the consumer aspects of the industry. It focuses on the needs of Ontarians who are considering or who have already signed agreements for wireless cellphone services. The bill, if passed, is designed to protect consumers through clear disclosure requirements and cancellation rights.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Consumer Services has said that the government has consulted industry on the development of this bill, and the industry’s message was clear: Any government action must be consistent with actions taken by other provinces. We have listened to the industry’s message, and this bill has been aligned with similar initiatives in other provinces, to avoid a patchwork of regulations across the country.

We are taking steps, through this proposed legislation, to help consumers make informed choices when spending their hard-earned dollars. As I have mentioned, we are responding to consumer frustrations with contracts in this sector to help Ontario families. Families, when they sign cellphone contracts, would benefit from clear and easy-to-understand language in cellphone contracts. This would put the onus on businesses to make sure their customers know what services they are paying for.

Ontario is also aligning with Quebec and Manitoba, who have taken action in this sector. General consistency across provinces will reduce the burden on industry and facilitate compliance in Ontario.

The legislation would ensure that before a contract is signed, the wireless service supplier has disclosed to the consumer whether a phone or other device is locked and only usable with respect to a particular supplier, and, if so, how long it is locked for and whether the lock will be removed at the end of the contract, and at what price.

Bill 82 would help people understand what they are receiving in their wireless services agreement. Agreements would need to clearly explain what services are provided, what services would result in added cost for the customer, how services can be assessed, and rates and restrictions; for example, if a long-distance plan is within the province of Ontario or within the country of Canada or throughout America.

If a phone is provided free or at a discount, the contract would need to include its retail value and the actual cost to the consumer.

Information on how cancellation fees are calculated would need to be included in the agreement.

It is encouraging to see the CRTC is considering taking active steps to explore their role in the wireless sector by stating their intent to hold consultations on the state of wireless competition in Canada. But the CRTC can be slow. We at the provincial level are taking action. We are on the front lines of consumer protection. Ontarians come to us with their complaints and inquiries, and we know that cellphone contracts are a huge issue for many consumers.

There’s a lot of independent support for this bill, as I have said earlier. Michael Janigan is the executive director and general counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, whose background and experience is one of supporting consumers on many issues. He stated, “This bill will help remove barriers to real competition for the ordinary consumers of wireless services,” and, he said, “It will help level the playing field for customers who currently feel trapped by ... one-sided conditions.”

Mel Fruitman, who is the vice-president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, stated, “For a long time consumers have been victims of the nefarious marketing practices of wireless telephone companies. This protection for consumers is necessary and long overdue. We can see no reason why this act would not receive all-party support and be quickly passed.”

I will be supporting this bill at second reading because this bill contains strong measures that will protect consumers and their families. I know the constituents in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South and consumers all across Ontario will also support our government’s measures as proposed in this important piece of legislation. We are involving consumers by ensuring that they get the information they need to make informed decisions. This information will help consumers to better understand their mobile and cellphone contracts and get the contract they agree to.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise in debate today. Of course, we all recognize the need for consumer protection in Ontario, particularly as it relates to cellphone bills and for those folks that have been gouged. We in the official opposition do find it passing strange, however, that the Minister of Consumer Services, Margarett Best, decided to steal the thunder of the member from Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Orazietti, who has had quite a strong legislative track record. I think the minister was quite envious.

We also find the timing to be considerably awkward, given the fact that the CRTC, just five days before Margarett Best decided to steal Mr. Orazietti’s thunder, decided to look into this. I believe they have announced consultations in preparation for creating a national regulation with major providers; and many of those major providers, I might add, are on board with that particular legislation. But it also, I think, speaks to this motivation.

As I mentioned, the member from Sault Ste. Marie had put forward a bill, Bill 5. He had put forward this bill previously as well. It’s in committee. Instead, what this bill will do is kill his bill. As I stated, this non-government member in the Liberal government has put forward a number of pieces of legislation in the past, and they were quite able to amend his legislation and give him the credit. But I think his strong track record in making legislation pass this House, with the exception of what the Minister of Consumer Services has in the past, was the reason for him losing his bill.

So I have profound regret on behalf of that member and for that member that the minister would behave this way.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: I am also happy to stand on behalf of Hamilton Mountain residents this morning to speak about this important bill that’s before us, because consumer protection is quite important. We know that many times consumers’ children, who are probably among the top users of cellphones these days—seniors are using cellphones; people who are learning our languages are using cellphones. It states here that 77% of Ontarians are using cellphones. Many folks don’t even have home phones in their residence anymore.

They’re counting on cellphone providers to give them a good service and a service that they can trust in. Hopefully, we’ll be able to make sure that this bill becomes law in protecting consumers.

We definitely see every day the young folks, kids, teenagers who are running around with cellphones in their ears. When parents don’t know what kind of contract that they’re signing and then they see a bill at the end of the month that’s hundreds of dollars for a use that they believed would suit their child’s needs, that is something that most families can’t afford. Like I said, you can’t have one kid having a cellphone and not the other these days. It’s become like the Nike shoes of the past—and worse.

Again, consumers aren’t reading the big, long contracts. Making sure that we have clear contracts that put the consumer first, that know what the consumers are buying into, is definitely important. I will be supporting this bill and look forward to that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from York West.

Mr. Mario Sergio: I’m pleased to hear that the members are supporting Bill 82. I think the member from Sault Ste. Marie should be congratulated, Speaker, for bringing this to the attention of the House.

It’s one of those issues that, again, is affecting all of our people, I would say. I don’t have to tell you, Speaker, that technology is changing as we speak. Therefore, anything that we can do to improve clarity, that can improve consumer protection and save them money at the same time, I think is a good thing. I hope that this bill goes to second reading so we can have further hearings on this as it travels, because there are still other areas to be looked at to make it even stronger. I don’t think the bill goes far enough. I think there are other areas we should be looking at.

I can look at my own bills, Mr. Speaker, and I have to tell you that when your own BlackBerry or whatever you use—I have no idea why companies have to repeat their message three or four times before it is erased. That is stealing time and stealing money from the pockets of our people.

If there is a contract, the contract should stipulate very clearly the facts, the terms of the contract, the limits and limitations. I think the bill clarifies all of that. We should give our consumers every opportunity to save money. There are people using it a lot and they pay a lot of money, and they could be saving a lot of money. It’s incumbent upon us to do the right thing, bring it to the attention of the public. It’s important that we, as legislators, look into it for the benefit of our people.

I hope that Bill 82 will pass and move on to public hearings.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to comment on the address by the member from Mississauga on Bill 82, the cellphone bill.

If there’s somebody out there who could say they have never opened up a cellphone bill and reacted in some way angrily, even if in private, then I would say they’ve never actually opened up a cellphone bill. Nobody who’s got a cellphone in this province doesn’t shake their head sometimes and say, “What in the name of Sam Hill is going on here?”

I do commend the member for Sault Ste. Marie. This has been a pet peeve of his since he came here in 2003—I was elected at the same time—and he has been on the cellphone issue for that length of time.

This bill will do something to help. It’s about disclosure and ensuring that there’s some clarity and understandability to the cellphone bills. Is it going to reduce the costs of operating cellphones? It doesn’t really touch on that. That’s not an issue. You’re not going to have fewer roaming charges and stuff like that; they’re not delving into that side of the telecommunications industry.

But from the point of view of being able to, in some way, understand the bill a little better, it’s a positive step. We’ll have to see how it actually materializes, because so much of the legislation this government introduces turns out to be a toothless tiger at times. We’re hoping this actually does have some impact and that people have a better understanding of the cellphone bill they’re getting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Mississauga–Brampton South has two minutes.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a pocketbook issue and consumers want it to be addressed.

I appreciate the comments from the members opposite, but I differ from the member from Nepean–Carleton. She said that the minister has stolen the thunder from the member from Sault Ste. Marie. He deserves congratulations; he has done a lot of work. In life, we all know it’s working together, it’s teamwork, we work in unison. Actually, I’m proud of our strong caucus. I totally disagree with this.

This bill contains strong measures, as I said earlier. It will protect consumers and their families. This bill, if passed, will provide information to consumers that will help them better understand their mobile and wireless services contracts and get the contract they agree to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Renfrew—no?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, I’m just leaving.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much. It’s great to speak this morning. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has lots of opportunities to speak. We don’t need to hear him again.

It is great to be up here today to speak to Bill 82. My colleague the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, in eastern Ontario, did a great job yesterday outlining this meticulous bill and detailing some of the problems that do exist in the bill from a logistics point of view.

I think those who are talking about the fact that it’s going to result in smaller cellphone bills—it’s a bit of a myth. This bill isn’t going to do that. This bill is going to make it a bit clearer for people to understand their bills, but I do worry sometimes about red tape—increasing red tape and increasing legislation. I know in Manitoba, when they brought in a bill similar to this—you know, a cellphone contract sometimes looks like this, right? You open it up and it’s got all this small print on it and you can read it a long time. Government legislation often looks like this.

This is from Mike Harris here, my friend. That’s going to make it simpler? Creating legislation? I don’t know if that’s necessarily the answer in this case.

But my colleague who spoke yesterday was the lead on this for consumer services. He’s Tim Hudak’s critic. He’s an engineer. He’s got years of experience in this field. He’s uniquely qualified among members of the House to speak on this issue as he worked with Bell Canada for many, many years. He suggested yesterday that we call this the “me too” bill. I don’t know if he’s too far off the mark in calling it the “me too” bill. That’s not meant to denigrate the member from Sault Ste.

Marie, who in the last session and earlier in the previous session, as well as the act alluded to in 2003, when he was elected—this has been his pet project: to bring in legislation to create some reform in the wireless telecommunications industry in this province, where obviously there is an issue. But again I go back to the fact that I don’t know if this legislation, as it stands right now, is the be-all, end-all answer to the problems that exist.

I don’t know if it’s going to do what is necessary to make your cellphone bills smaller in the province, which is what we’ve heard a lot about in the discussions so far this morning from different members of the House—roaming charges and information packages that cost so much money.

With two young daughters in my house that are nine and 11 years old, there’s a couple of different smart phones and there’s a cellphone sitting around there as well. My daughter gets on my BlackBerry and starts to download her Katy Perry video or her Lady Gaga video or Taylor Swift or whoever it might be today. That’s going to end up still costing you money—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: We know it’s you. We know it’s you, Smitty.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’m not downloading the Lady Gaga; Taylor Swift, she’s okay. I don’t mind Taylor Swift.

Anyway, this government continually plays games with policies like this; that’s what this government does. So, you know, they’re taking advantage of the headlines. It was no coincidence, I don’t think, that the week after the CBC did a major news story on cell shock with data plans and those types of things that the government decided, “Hey, this is the perfect opportunity to bring in this bill that Mr. Orazietti has had on the table for eight years now.” So they’re taking advantage of the situation—

Mr. Jeff Leal: I thought the Conservatives didn’t watch the CBC.

Mr. Todd Smith: Once in a while I watch the CBC, Mr. Leal.

None of this, I don’t think, is particularly shocking to people who have been watching the goings-on here at Queen’s Park for the last eight or nine years. We’ve talked about the fact that a lot of the bills are made for headlines. They’re made to give the illusion that the government is actually working on behalf of the people of Ontario to create meaningful legislation, when really what it’s being created for is to create a few positive headlines and make it seem like they’re doing work.

As my colleague pointed out yesterday, in addition to the CBC running that story, the CRTC had also presented notice that they’re considering changes to the federal regulations in this regard. In addition to the public steps, the governments of Quebec and Manitoba have already introduced legislation on this subject. As I mentioned, the Manitoba legislation is pretty, pretty thick.

So once again it’s a government that seems to enjoy leading from the back of the pack. It’s the “me too” bill. Hard to think of something that the current government enjoys doing more than giving itself the opportunity to poke other jurisdictions in the eye, whether it’s Alberta over the oil sands, or they continually like to poke our friends in Ottawa in the eye as well, our federal government.

I know that there are those who ask why we should care about why a bill is being brought forward and whether or not that should matter to this debate, but it does matter. It matters because it’s symbolic of a larger problem. It’s a bill to address the headline once again. We’re stuck with this bill after the headline is gone, so we’ve got to make sure that this is a good bill. My colleague yesterday referred to this as a distraction. That’s exactly what it is. There are a lot of things that we should be talking about right now in this House—

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Job creation.

Mr. Todd Smith: Job creation; the economy, which is going down the toilet; a huge, huge debt; deficit—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What about the horse racing industry?

Mr. Todd Smith: My friend from Nepean–Carleton wants to talk about the horse racing industry; good call as well. How about the Ornge scandal? The government said that they would give us a select committee on the Ornge scandal. The health minister said that herself many, many times. There are so many other issues that mean a lot to people: soaring hydro rates in the province of Ontario, seniors that can’t live in their homes because they’re paying—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would hope that the member would keep to the agenda. He seems to be drifting a bit and he seems to be having cross-dialogue with other members. Go through me, thanks.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a former referee as well, I do respect you, that you’re in control of the situation here.

You know, this isn’t to say that cell shock isn’t a problem in Ontario. I just talked about a number of the red tape problems and all of the problems in the province of Ontario. Cell shock is also a problem—it is. We have ministers on the government side of the House who stand up during question period and pay lip service to reducing regulation for business, and then the next week the government brings in a bill like this that’s going to increase regulation on the telecommunications industry.

The member from the Soo, in his initial remarks, acknowledged that this is a federal responsibility. He then proceeded to attack the federal regulator for being slow to act, which maybe is okay; they were a little slow to react. However, as I and the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry have pointed out, the CRTC launched a regulatory review of this very matter.

So the government knows that this is occurring right now in the nation’s capital and it would create a blanket of regulations for the entire country, not this piecemeal, patchwork type of regulation.

That’s why it’s very important, I think, going forward, that instead of creating our own legislation here in the province of Ontario that might be different from Manitoba or different from Quebec, we actually look at the Quebec legislation and we make sure that our legislation matches up with what’s happening in Quebec, because if you take Ontario and you take Quebec, you’re taking a lot of the cellphone users and putting them under the same regulations, because let’s face it, most of the population of the country is in Quebec and here in Ontario. Therefore, most of the cellphone users are in these two provinces.

We have to make sure that when we sit down at committee, which we’re willing to do, we reduce the amount of red tape, because we all know that red tape only increases the cost of doing business. It just does; it’s a fact. We have to adopt the same standards as Quebec, or very similar standards, so that we’re not creating more red tape for the telecommunications industry. We’ve heard all of the members here in the House today talking about the fact that we’re paying too much for our cellphone bills. What are we going to do if we create more red tape for the industry?

We’re going to cause the cellphone bills to increase. It’s just a matter of fact. That’s what’s going to happen. So for every clause we deviate from the existing legislation in other provinces, we add another layer of red tape to this industry. So regardless of what the member from the Soo chooses to believe, this additional cost will be paid by the consumer. The cellphone user will end up paying. They always do. So our consumers may be able to make more informed choices but they may have to do so at a higher cost.

This particular bill has brought out the best anti-business tone in this Liberal government. We’ve heard how the big, bad telecom companies are seeking to take advantage of consumers and how without this bill consumers will be powerless against companies that have bullied the CRTC in order to get their way. That’s from the Liberal backbench. During question period, of course, the Premier and his ministers come in and they thank these companies for doing more to keep this province economically afloat than this government has ever done.

There are things in this bill that are, as I said, commonsense solutions to consumer concerns. It’s a desirable condition of a free market that the consumer be able to make decisions that are as informed as possible. We should want to protect consumers, and we do on this side of the House. We should want a healthy, viable, innovative and growing telecommunications sector in this province, and I believe that we do have that, although there are some bad things happening at RIM right now. We should want to reduce the red tape and regulatory burden, because it affects consumers as well as businesses.

As the PC critic for small business and red tape, I want regulation in this province that makes sense, and that’s what our businesses want as well. Regulation for the sake of regulation or, worse yet, regulation for the sake of appearing decisive often leads to more laws and amendments later on. So what I think we’d like to see here and what we’d like to see addressed here is the best bill possible. More importantly, Ontario needs to stop unnecessarily picking fights with other levels of government, whether it’s our fellow provinces in the west or the federal government in Ottawa.

There was a time when the province of Ontario took pride in having a leadership role in Confederation; there was a time when we didn’t blame the other levels of government for problems in Ontario. But when you’re staring down the face of the Ornge scandal and when you’ve been downgraded twice after your budget, you need a distraction. Again, I think that’s where this bill comes in. It’s a distraction from the problems that are currently faced here in Ontario. We’re here talking about a telecommunications cell shock bill when we should be talking about the other issues I talked about three or four minutes ago.

I said yesterday that we had serious problems to face in this province, and we do. We have to address them like adults. We’re not sent here to play childish name-calling games with other levels of government; we’re sent here to make sure that we get the job done. We’re sent here to make sure that our constituents are being represented well and getting the best government that we can possibly give them. So I ask my colleagues over on the government benches, why is it in our interest to demonize, rather than work with, the CRTC? That’s kind of what’s happening here.

We’re blaming the CRTC: “They haven’t done anything; they’re sitting on their cushy chairs in Ottawa.” That’s the rhetoric that I’m hearing from the other side, when really we should be working with the CRTC to ensure that we get the best possible bill that will cover the whole country of Canada.

Telecommunications law is, at the moment, in the jurisdiction of federal government, and the member from the Soo and the Minister of Consumer Services said the same last week when they brought in this bill, or at least began debate on it. Everyone who has spoken to the bill so far acknowledges that if we could or if we still can work with the other provinces and work with the CRTC to ensure one comprehensive national set of regulations to protect consumers, then why isn’t that the very best option?

Well, it goes back to the headlines again, because they want to get the good press now and make it seem like they’re actually doing something here, when we know full well that not much has gotten done here over the last several years.

Ontario can make a substantive contribution to a national discussion here. Every member of this House likely has their smart phone bolted to their hip right now and it’s vibrating away, or it’s in their pockets. We know the Minister of the Environment doesn’t have that problem. He’s still using his Hilroy scrapbook to keep track of his messages.

Mr. Jeff Leal: He’s doing a good job.

Mr. Todd Smith: He is doing a great job at keeping track of his messages, considering he doesn’t use a smart phone. But these devices, for most of us here—for the other 105 of us—have changed the way that we communicate: Twitter, Facebook, BlackBerry Messenger, BBM, the emails that now exist at our fingertips 24 hours a day. It’s something that would have seemed inconceivable, probably, when the Minister of the Environment arrived here, that we would all be communicating that way. He did just celebrate his 35th anniversary here yesterday.

Imagine that we would be living in this world right now where we’re communicating instantly on cellphones on our hips—not the large cellphones. I remember when I was hired at Quinte Broadcasting, in the Belleville area, our news cruiser—we had a Jeep Cherokee, and the Jeep Cherokee had a cellphone in it that was this big. It sat in between the front seats in the cruiser. Imagine, you had to get out and carry it over your shoulder and go report on a crash on the 401 or whatever it might be. Now you can do it right on your hip. So it’s quite amazing how technology has evolved—and it’s going to continue to evolve.

There’s no way that we’re ever going to stop progress; that’s for sure. The smart phone is only going to play a more integral

part in commerce and communications going forward.

That’s why I brought in a private member’s bill, which was supported by a member of the government side, a few weeks ago, and I look forward to making that legislation. It would help members of the real estate community complete real estate transactions by using electronic signatures. It just seemed like a common sense bill, and it’s something that I’m happy that the member from Ottawa Centre is able to support as well, and hopefully the government side will support it.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It’s coming. It’s coming.

Mr. Todd Smith: I like what I’m hearing from over there, that it’s coming. That’s good.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll be offering cautious support to Bill 82. I know you were sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for that. We will be offering cautious support to Bill 82 at the second reading stage. I think there’s an opportunity there to amend the bill and protect consumers without creating unnecessary red tape, as I described earlier, in this growing industry.

We hope that it continues to grow, and we believe it will. I’ve met with all of the telecommunication giants in this country, and they’re doing all kinds of work across the country, adding to their systems to make sure that more and more people in rural parts of Ontario are able to access cellphone service, so that our businesses are able to access the wireless that is needed.

But I know in eastern Ontario there is a huge project supported by the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, that’s been supported by all levels of government, and it’s making sure that all of the rural areas are able to access the same types of advantages that businesses here in the GTA and in the Ottawa area are able to access.

In order to make sure that we have a good bill—and it was described by the member from Trinity–Spadina as a good bill earlier; it could be a much better bill—we need to get it to the clause-by-clause stage at committee to make sure that this bill will have the impact that we want it to have to make life better for wireless users in Ontario.

We also need to have a serious discussion about how Ontario can best assume a leadership role in ensuring that there’s a national standard that serves the best interests of consumers not just here in Ontario but across the country. I’d say that this is one area where leadership on the government benches has been most noticeably missing.

Anyone can pick a fight, Mr. Speaker, and it seems that it’s the oldest political trick in the book: You pick an opponent, you paint them as a controlling or wealthy predatory person, and then paint yourself as the underdog, sticking up for the little guy. It’s the classic political formula, and we’ve seen it too often. It’s somewhat insulting to our voters.

Some issues, and this is one, are way too complicated to deal with on a black-and-white basis. The more we try and make this a simple issue, the greater the likelihood that we’ll end up with a piece of legislation that isn’t up to the task that it was drafted for. If that happens, those of us who are lucky enough to return to this House will be back here in a couple of years, or five years, and we’ll be debating a package of amendments to this bill to try and change it, well after it has caused damage either to consumers or to the industry that we ignored right now.

So we need to sit down and we need to listen to people like Bernard Lord of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, the former Premier of New Brunswick, who got that province back to balanced budgets.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: He’s a fine man.

Mr. Todd Smith: He’s a fine man.

The CWTA has some concerns about this bill, and I’ve spoken at length with them about some of the issues, including one that involves the end of the contract. So in this bill, what happens is—you’ve got your cellphone, right? It’s running on a three-year package. Maybe you’re not opening your mail when it comes to you, and you don’t realize that your three-year deal is about to come to an end. When your deal comes to an end and you haven’t renewed that contract, that very next day, your cellphone is cancelled. So you wake up in the morning and you’re not getting your talking notes from the Premier’s office. Imagine what could go wrong.

This is something that does need to be addressed in committee, because if the contract just ends, what happens now, too, is that your phone number that you’ve had for 15 years goes into a pool and it’s just gone, right? So you’ve got your business cards saying “member from Peterborough” on them, and then your cellphone number is gone. They’ve been distributed to thousands of people. So it’s a serious issue that does need to be looked at in committee as well.

I think the one thing that this bill doesn’t do—and again, the myth that surrounds this bill is that it’s actually going to drive down the cost of cellphone usage in the province of Ontario. This bill isn’t going to do that. This bill is going to make it clearer to understand the contract, right? We have to be careful that if we bring in unnecessary red tape and create more red tape and more cumbersome, burdensome things for the companies to deal with, then it is going to end up on the bills of consumers.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this on this beautiful Wednesday morning.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members’ expenses for the fiscal year 2011-12. The members will find copies of that report in their own desks here in the House.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased today to introduce a good friend of mine, Joe Neal. He is in the west gallery here. Joe is a ward 1 councillor in the municipality of Clarington and a practising lawyer. Welcome, Joe. Enjoy the day.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to introduce Trevor Kidd. He’s a flight paramedic and a long-term resident of my constituency. He testified at the hearings this morning.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce, in the east members’ gallery, Amelia McLeod. She’s the president of the Queen’s debating union, but more importantly, she’s working in my office this summer.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m pleased and proud to introduce Feng Bai, who is the mother of page Sam Sun, from the riding of Kitchener–Waterloo.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to introduce Naila Qazi. She’s the mother of the page from my riding of Mississauga–Erindale, Sherry Aslam. I want to welcome her to the Legislature.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like to welcome a former member and a good friend of mine, Joyce Savoline, from Burlington, and Bianca Lankheit.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome guests from the University of Toronto who will be shadowing me today: Rafael, Tarana and Chantelle.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to introduce two young women in the east members’ gallery who are volunteering in my constituency office. Samantha Ho is a fourth-year student at York University. She speaks four languages. Atifat Ashraf is a graduate from U of T in economics and international relations.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce my wife, Jane; my mum and dad, Lyle and Jackie; my mother-in-law, Aleta; and my brother- and sister-in-law, Gary and Penny Ludwig.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’m delighted to recognize and welcome Oresta Mishalkowsky. She’s a constituent in my riding. She won the opportunity to have lunch with me, and that’s what we’re going to do later today.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I ask all members to help me welcome the grade 5 class from Fred C. Cook Public School from Bradford, who will be joining us momentarily.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for—let me get this right—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, yes. He’s so disappointed. Prescott–Russell—

Interjections: Glengarry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

M. Grant Crack: Merci, monsieur le Président. C’est un honneur pour moi ce matin de présenter l’ancien député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, M. Jean-Marc Lalonde.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’m pleased to welcome a friend of mine, a well-known, well-respected lawyer and a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association: Kris Bonn.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very pleased to introduce two young women: Lauren Hanna, who is just finishing up in my office with the Ontario legislative intern program. Also, welcome to Kartiga Thavarais, who is going to be a summer intern in my office. Please join me in welcoming them.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like to introduce to the House the father of page Louis Vatrt, who is here today to see the proceedings and his son’s role as a page. Thank you, and welcome.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’m delighted today to welcome Joe and Lozanne Wamback, who are the founders of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation. They are also here to tell us about the Freedom Walk that they are doing across Canada. It’s going to come to Queen’s Park on June 23. They are welcoming everybody to come by room 212A after question period for just five minutes, and maybe you as an MPP can participate in their Freedom Walk. Joe and Lozanne Wamback, welcome.

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

As stated before by myself, the tradition is for the Speaker to acknowledge these wonderful members who have returned to visit, so I would like to introduce, for us to once again receive, Joyce Savoline from Burlington in the 38th and 39th Parliaments. Welcome.

And someone who’s probably going to give me proper heck for getting a blank in my mind for the name of the riding, who I’m going to hear from as well, and that is Jean-Marc Lalonde from Prescott–Russell in the 36th and Glengarry–Prescott–Russell from the 37th—

Interjection: Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now it’s your turn to listen. I said from Prescott–Russell in the 36th Parliament and Glengarry–Prescott–Russell in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments: Jean-Marc Lalonde.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s my wish that everyone listen.

Anyway, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning, the public accounts committee heard from flight paramedic Trevor Kidd. Mr. Kidd travelled from Thunder Bay to tell us what it was like, as a front-line flight paramedic, to provide service within Ornge Air while millions of tax dollars were being wasted and while patients were being put at risk.

Here’s what he said when asked why more of his colleagues are not willing to come forward to tell us about their experience: He said they are afraid to lose their jobs.

Speaker, these are our front-line emergency responders of our air ambulance service. I ask the minister this: Why should those front-line emergency responders have to be afraid to tell us about their working conditions in this province? I would ask the minister to respond directly to Mr. Kidd and his colleagues on the front lines.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We think it’s very important that we have a full airing of what is happening, or what was happening, at Ornge. That’s why public accounts is meeting and will continue to meet to hear from people like Mr. Kidd.

I, of course, am paying attention to the hearings. I think it’s important that we do continue to improve operations at Ornge. That’s why we have Bill 50 before this House. Bill 50 includes whistle-blower protection. I really wish that if the member opposite was genuinely interested in improving the operations at Ornge, he would quit blocking Bill 50 and support it.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, when we raise questions in this House about what’s going on at Ornge and why ambulance services cannot respond to emergencies because there are no pilots, because there are no paramedics, because of a faulty interior that doesn’t allow paramedics to conduct basic CPR—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: When we raise those issues, the minister accuses us of playing partisan politics. Mr. Kidd raised those same questions in the public accounts committee today. He told us that little, if anything, has changed.

I would like to know now—she accuses us of being partisan—what does she have to say to Mr. Kidd, who is listening to her now? Is he being partisan as well?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I would like to say to Mr. Kidd and to all the witnesses who have come to testify before public accounts committee, thank you. We think it’s important that we have a full airing of the issues around Ornge. I think it’s also important to note that the committee does provide protection. I would urge the member opposite to stop suggesting otherwise. Witnesses before the committee do have protection, Speaker.

I also would invite the member opposite to reveal the information that he has, because I don’t know why he’s hiding information when he has no compunction whatsoever in releasing personal health information.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: One of the reasons that we have the information is that the people out there trust us and they don’t trust this government. That’s why.

They don’t trust this government to take them seriously. That’s why those paramedics on the front lines continue to try to find a way to get the message through to this government that they continue to experience downstaffing, that there continue to be circumstances where there are no pilots, where there are not enough paramedics and where they cannot respond to emergency calls.

Now, the minister won’t listen to us. She continues to say that everything’s fine on the front lines. Will she tell Mr. Trevor Kidd and the paramedics on the front lines today that she will now begin to take some decisive action and restore credibility to our air ambulance service?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My understanding is that Mr. Kidd did leave Ornge in 2009. I can also tell the member opposite that I have met with several current front-line staff at Ornge. They tell me that they are very encouraged by the changes they are seeing.

I’ve said in this House before that the new leadership at Ornge is very committed to getting the staffing where it needs to be. They’re making great progress and I look forward to hearing from them very soon about the progress they’re making in their staffing.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Flight paramedic Trevor Kidd—back to the minister—travelled here from Thunder Bay to testify at the hearings into this Ornge air ambulance scandal. He told us why he no longer works there.

Here’s what he said about why the exodus of front-line paramedics and pilots continues today. I’ll quote from his statement. “Because they feel that the actions done so far have been to try to minimize political fallout, and have little confidence that serious efforts are being made to improve patient care....”

When we raise these concerns in that tone, we’re accused of being partisan. I would like the minister now to explain to Mr. Kidd why all of those people on the front lines still don’t have confidence, and what will she do to restore that confidence?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can tell you that we are very interested in hearing from all of the witnesses. This particular witness has not worked at Ornge since 2009. I can tell you that the paramedics I speak to are encouraged by our progress.

I think it’s also important to recognize the work that our front-line staff are doing rather than having them bashed every day in this Legislature.

Just yesterday, 58 patients were transported by Ornge; 58 patients who are grateful for getting to the care they need. Speaker, 50 of those patients were being transferred from one facility to another. There were seven that were transported by land—babies, pediatric patients—and there was one rotor scene response.

This work is ongoing. We have to say thank you to our very dedicated front-line staff.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, Speaker, I’d like the minister to listen to these statistics, because they are statistics directly from Thunder Bay—just one base—over the last month. Twenty-nine recorded incidents of downtime: 17 due to no paramedic available for 87 hours; 10 due to no pilot available for a total of 90 hours; two incidents of unscheduled maintenance. The minister can tell me about 50 patients who have been transferred. I’m asking her about the many patients who never received a call, who were never able to be attended to.

I’d like to know this: If in fact it was a member of the minister’s family to whom an air ambulance was not able to respond, would she stand in her place and be as glib about this incident as she is today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is vitally important that all parts of our health care system are working to their maximum capability. Ornge is making significant progress towards being the very best it can be—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a scam.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In the performance agreement that is in place, the new legislation that is currently before the House will give us the information we need to be able to measure exactly the kinds of questions the member opposite is asking. I think it’s vitally important that all members of this House acknowledge that Bill 50 is an important piece of moving forward with Ornge. I do not understand why the member opposite continues to criticize but will not be part of the solution.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: What the minister doesn’t understand is that this province doesn’t need more regulations and regulations; it needs a minister who can hold accountable our air ambulance service. That’s what we need.

The reality is that in our hearings so far there are three themes that are developing. One of them is that greed led to waste of precious health care dollars at our air ambulance service. The second is that incompetence and mismanagement have put patients at risk. The third theme is that this government is much more intent on defending itself and diverting attention from itself than it is about getting down to the bottom of fixing what needs to be fixed.

I would suggest to this minister that what she should do now is look carefully at the testimony of Mr. Kidd and others from across this province and admit that she has mishandled this file. What she should do now is either get it fixed or step aside and let someone competent deal with the file.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Of course we’re paying very careful attention to all of the people who are testifying before the Ornge inquiry. I think it’s important that we also take advice from other non-partisan, impartial experts. That includes the Auditor General of this province. The Auditor General has acknowledged the significant steps that have been taken. His advice is to do what we are doing in Bill 50.

I do not understand why the member opposite continues to hide information that he has on this issue. I do not understand why he rejects the advice of the Auditor General. If he wants to be part of the solution, then stand up and be part of the solution.

Interjection.

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

POWER PLANT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. A decade ago, the Liberal leader promised to run a different sort of government. He promised, “You have a right to know how your money is being spent. We will make sure you can exercise it.”

“We will require that all future contracts signed by the government be subject to public scrutiny.”

Does the Liberal government still believe that the people of this province, the people who work hard and pay their electricity bills, have a right to know how their money is being spent?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last year, days before an election, the government cancelled construction of a gas-fired generation plant in Mississauga. Since that day, they have refused to tell the people who will pay for that decision how much it’s going to cost them.

Ten years ago, the Liberal leader promised, “We will require that all future contracts signed by the government be subject to public scrutiny,” and added, “Where legitimate confidentiality concerns prevent certain provisions from being released, we will make them available to the Provincial Auditor to make a public interest ruling.”

Why is the government now refusing to do exactly this with regard to the private power plants in Oakville and Mississauga?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We did say, during September, that the plant would not proceed in Mississauga and that we would work to relocate it—a decision, I might add, that was quickly joined in and confirmed by the third party and by the opposition. They’ve never changed that. And now what we’re involved in are those discussions, those negotiations. And there are some lawsuits on both sides of the border relating to those circumstances. When they reach a conclusion and we have more to report—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I asked this awhile ago and I’ll ask it again: Inside voices, please.

Minister.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: When they reach a conclusion, when we have more to report addressing the issues that are raised by the leader of the third party, I’m looking forward to being able to speak to them at that time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, contrary to the Minister of Energy’s assertions, New Democrats, immediately when that plant was cancelled, contacted the Auditor General and asked him to look into the cost. Via a page, I’ll send this letter over to the Minister of Energy so that he can remember how New Democrats reacted to that announcement.

Really, it’s pretty simple stuff—it’s pretty simple stuff. The people who sent us here are the people who pay the bills. They have a right to know what it is that they’re paying for. Building power lines? We’re happy to pay for that. Tunnels at Niagara Falls? We’re ready to pay. Eighty-million dollar handouts to US hedge funds so the government can win a seat? Not so happy to pay for that. When did the Ontario Liberals so badly lose their way? Where is the Dalton McGuinty of 2002?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: History and the record will confirm, I do believe, that after we announced the intention not to proceed with the gas plant in Mississauga, the third party did support our intention, did not wish the gas plant to proceed; also confirmed by the PCs. They’ve never changed that position, unless they’re now saying to the people of Mississauga and the western GTA that in fact they want it there.

The issue about the results of the very sensitive discussions that we’re involved in representing the people of Ontario and the lawsuits where we’re representing the people of Ontario—the results of those discussions I look forward to speaking to at the appropriate time.

POWER PLANT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats have always been against Liberal private power deals from day one.

My next question is to the Acting Premier. There is no question that Ontario is facing tough economic times, but when this minority government asks Ontarians to tighten their belts, it should be setting a good example. Instead, they’re proving that price is no object when it comes to protecting their own partisan interests. Will this government explain to Ontarians just how much in taxpayers’ dollars they’re willing to spend to make the Mississauga gas plant go away?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I indicated to the House, we are in discussions right now about the relocation of the gas plant that was scheduled for Mississauga and that all three parties agree should not proceed there. Those discussions have not reached a conclusion. There are very sensitive discussions in which the interests of the people of the province of Ontario are at stake, and we’re representing those. And there are lawsuits—not surprisingly—on both sides of the border relating to that. As those proceed and as they reach a conclusion, we’ll be able to speak to the issues that are raised by the leader of the third party.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The interests of the people of Ontario are the last thing that are on the minds of this Liberal government. It’s the interests of the Liberals that are on the mind of this government.

This government is crying poor, but they’re acting like the last of the big-time spenders when they cancel the Mississauga plant. It’s telling northerners on the one hand that there’s no money to protect the ONTC; meanwhile, it’s slipping Ontario Power Authority $82.3 million to pay off a US hedge fund. Why can this government find the dough to save its own bacon but nothing to save a vital transportation link for remote northern communities?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’ll confine my remarks to the issue about the Mississauga plant, about which, as I recall, the member from Toronto–Danforth, on September 26, 2011, said, “We wouldn’t build it.” So we’re all on the same page.

It is important that we be able to address these issues as they’ve reached a conclusion—not in the piecemeal rumours, innuendos, suggestions, but as they reach a conclusion, so at that point we can have a full discussion about the relocation and all of the other attendant issues that I’m sure the leader of the third party will want to ask me about.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Energy finally got it right: New Democrats wouldn’t have gotten into that private power scheme in the first place.

Speaker, either this government doesn’t understand what “getting good value for money” means or they just don’t care. Families across the province are stretching their hard-earned wages to pay for groceries and to keep the lights on. Meanwhile, this government is giving away money for nothing.

Yesterday, the Minister of Energy dodged every single question about the cost of cancelling the Mississauga power plant. Will this government come clean today and tell Ontarians how much they’re prepared to spend to make that Mississauga gas plant go away?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I’ve indicated, both in the House and, of course, at that other place, we’re involved in some very sensitive discussions with respect to the Mississauga gas plant. The interests of the people of the province of Ontario are being represented. Those interests won’t be assisted if we publicize our position—to the detriment of the interests of the people of the province of Ontario—while we’re involved in these delicate discussions and the defence and the representation on certain lawsuits. I think it’s in the broader interest that we want those to reach a conclusion so that we can speak completely about them at the appropriate time.

In the meantime, we’re working very hard on fulfilling the commitment we made not to have the Mississauga gas plant there and to find a place for its relocation.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, recently leaked cabinet documents reveal that, despite the minister’s claims, Ornge remains unable to fulfill its mandate and that serious operational service gaps persist. Sadly, the cabinet document confirms that the people of Durham and indeed Peterborough county have experienced first-hand the inadequacies and failings that you have continued under your leadership.

It is saddening to see that on at least six occasions in the last 19 months, the Ministry of Health has investigated an incident involving a patient from Durham or the Peterborough area. Each and every one of these cases is due to the serious issues that the minister refuses to address. I ask her: Given that we know the minister has ignored warnings and refused to act, how can she justify her continued presence in cabinet?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think all of us, no matter what side of this House we sit on, have a responsibility to the people of Ontario. One of those responsibilities is to not misrepresent, to not—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister will withdraw.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I withdraw—to not distort information, to not make an inaccurate representation of the information.

We must all realize that each one of these cases that has been revealed by the member from Newmarket–Aurora—this personal information that has been revealed—each one of those is a person with a family, a family that is grieving, that is dealing with the death of a loved one.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We owe it to them to let them know the truth, not the political spin.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John O’Toole: The minister must answer for her failure in leadership. As a minister of the crown, responsibility for the ongoing compromised patient safety at Ornge rests solely with you.

I’d ask you to look at a specific case. On October 16, 2011, many months after our caucus raised concerns about Ornge, a child from Durham could not be transported by air ambulance to Sick Kids due to the helicopter’s faulty interior design. During the land transport, paramedics exhausted supplies of critical medications due to the policies implemented under your team at Ornge. Paramedics had to make an emergency stop at a hospital to replenish their supplies.

What does the minister have to say to the residents and families of Durham who suffered as a result of your failed leadership? They expect that you would apologize and resign.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: These are very, very serious incidents, Speaker. They have all been thoroughly investigated. The information is available to the coroner of Ontario. The coroner has access to information, does a thorough review and can choose, if he determines it’s necessary, to order an inquest.

The chief coroner of Ontario had to issue a statement to clarify the inaccurate depiction of this information. He said very clearly, “Of our completed investigations, there have been no cases in which issues with air ambulance transportation materially affected the course of the patient’s illness or injury.” The family members deserve to hear from the experts.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre par intérim.

This morning, a former paramedic at Ornge, Mr. Trevor Kidd, who’s sitting here with us, testified, “I knew there was corruption going on. I knew about the ski boat, the resort. We knew Dr. Mazza had disappeared from the sunshine list. We knew Steve Farquhar’s salary had gone up by $90,000. We knew about Dr. Mazza’s girlfriend.... These were the worst-kept secrets at Ornge.”

Did his Minister of Health choose to turn a blind eye to all of these events, or was she oblivious to the whole thing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I think it’s a matter of public record, the strong action that was taken by the Minister of Health when she learned of the problems that were going on at Ornge, the leadership that she showed.

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange—I have here a letter that was sent to the leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, December 22, 2010, which outlined many of the Ornge business models and the way moving forward. I believe it was copied to the member who just asked the question. So you can turn the question around, Mr. Speaker, and ask, where was the NDP in raising these concerns?

At the same time, we have learned a lot through the committee. We’ve learned about what happened at the Oshawa airport, that despite the fact that senior aviation experts were saying that you shouldn’t go to the Oshawa airport, we had prominent members of the Conservative Party, both provincial and federal members, lobbying Ornge to have it placed in that community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: At least it was entertaining, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kidd was so concerned about what was happening at Ornge that he actually felt he had to resign. He went to his father, who happens to be the mayor of Temiskaming Shores, Carman Kidd, so that he could ask him to help ring the alarm bells, that what was going on at Ornge was not right. Carman Kidd did help raise the alarm bells. He called the Ministry of Health. He spoke to the director of emergency services. He spoke to Malcolm Bates. He spoke to Kevin Finnerty.

He also called his Liberal MPP. It happened to be David Ramsay at the time. In 2009 he met with him. He met with him again in 2010 and rang the alarm bells. You know what, Mr. Speaker? The more witnesses we hear from, the more red flags we find were raised. Those red flags were raised by Trevor Kidd, Jacob Blum, ministry lawyers. Howard Hampton raised the alarm bell and so did I. Why did the minister ignore the red flags for so many, many years?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, we have a Minister of Health who has taken decisive action to address the concerns at Ornge. We have new leadership at Ornge, Mr. Speaker. We have the Auditor General, who has conducted a thorough review, which is right now being looked at by the public accounts committee. We had forensic auditors who came in, and due to the evidence that they found, the minister brought in the Ontario Provincial Police.

The missing piece of the puzzle, Mr. Speaker, is Bill 50—Bill 50, which brings together the recommendations that were put forward by the auditor. The opposition stands in this Legislature and claims that they want to make changes to Ornge, that they want to have better oversight at Ornge and better accountability. Then I ask them, why are they not supporting Bill 50? Will the New Democratic Party allow Bill 50 to go through so that we can put that final piece in place and make the changes that are necessary at that organization?

HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question this morning is to the hard-working and dedicated Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I understand that Ontario has moved away from the paper-based system of issuing hunting and fishing licences and towards a more efficient and modern licensing system. Many of my constituents in the riding of Peterborough, the headquarters of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, have bought their fishing and/or hunting licences for the season, and they’re telling me that the system makes it easier for them to get out and enjoy Ontario’s great outdoors.

Minister, can you elaborate, for the members of this House and all Ontarians, on how the new system works and remind those anglers and hunters who have not yet bought one where they can go to get their new licence and Ontario Outdoors Card—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Jeff Leal: —like the minister and I did several months ago—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Tennessee: Yours to Discover.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not the time to do that. And this is the way I’d like it.

Minister.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. It was great to be with the MPP for Peterborough when we were at the Outdoors Card centre a couple months ago, getting our Outdoors Cards.

Indeed, we are rolling out a new, modern system that will make it easier for anglers and hunters to get their licences. The new system offers many more options for getting and renewing licences. You can get your fishing and hunting licences online, by phone from the comfort of your home, local store or a ServiceOntario centre.

Since December, almost 1.3 million licences, Outdoors Cards and tags have been sold. I want to report also that all 69 ServiceOntario centres that are selling hunting and fishing licences are up and running. Over 867 private issuers are currently using the new system.

Hunting and fishing is a tremendous way for Ontarians to get out and experience the great outdoors and also a great contributor to our economy, and we ask more people to use the new system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Speaker, we won’t need a late show with that comprehensive answer. Thank you, Minister, for sharing the detailed information on our new licensing system.

Minister, both opposition parties have made claims that there are privacy risks, as the company contracted to manage our new and more efficient hunting and fishing licensing system is based in the United States. They claim that the information held by the company may be used inappropriately or accessed through the Patriot Act.

Minister, the Information and Privacy Commissioner was at Queen’s Park Monday to table her annual report in the Legislature. I understand she spoke about this very important issue.

Minister, I know that you have on numerous occasions expressed confidence in the privacy provisions that are built into our government’s contract. Based on what the privacy commissioner said yesterday, should hunters and anglers still be concerned that their privacy is at risk?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: That’s a great question, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. Indeed, the privacy commissioner was here at Queen’s Park, and she did make very specific reference to the issue that had come up related to privacy. She told us she will also be presenting us with a report on that issue, and we look forward to that report and any recommendations she may have.

She also had a chance to express her support for the work MNR is doing to ensure the privacy of Ontarians remains very safe. Specifically on MNR’s contractual agreement with the company, the commissioner said, “There’s a very tight contract. There are very tight service provisions.... And there’s an audit provision so that their use of data will be carefully audited.... I have no concerns about that whatsoever.”

Speaker, we welcome the comments made by the commissioner. We will certainly continue to work co-operatively to address any future concerns or questions that she may have.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Health. I rise today not to question the minister’s ability to manage Ornge or emergency dispatching in Waterloo region, because let’s be honest: We all know she has miserably failed at both. Instead, I rise today to question the minister’s ability to manage basic correspondence.

Minister, Waterloo region chair Ken Seiling sent you a letter dated February 10, calling on you and your government to address serious problems with emergency dispatching in the region of Waterloo. But here we are, four months later, and you haven’t even replied to the region’s concerns.

Minister, my question today is simple: Do you have any plans to respond to this important public safety concern raised by elected officials at Waterloo region, yes or no?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I take my correspondence very seriously, and there are issues that are raised that deserve a thoughtful, thorough reply. This particular piece of correspondence is one of them. I can assure you that I am aware of this correspondence, and we will be replying to Mr. Seiling when we have a complete and full answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Again to the minister: I guess four months later is better late than never, I suppose.

Just last year, confusion between emergency dispatching centres led to a significant delay in both the land and Ornge air ambulance response to a fatal helicopter crash in the region of Waterloo. This should have been a wake-up call for the Liberal government, especially since the region has been pleading for the province’s help.

Speaker, the problem gets even worse. The letter I’m holding here was also c.c.’d to John Milloy, the member for Kitchener Centre, but he has decided to ignore the region’s concerns as well. Since the member for Kitchener Centre has completely failed as a regional minister to stand up for the people in Waterloo region, the PC Party will.

Minister, how can the people of Waterloo region have any faith in your government when you and your colleagues continue to overlook these life-and-death matters?

Interjections.

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

I am very concerned about the continuation of comments after we start to get quiet—to be used as a moment in which you believe that’s the best time for you to heckle. It isn’t.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It isn’t from you either.

My frustration isn’t the fact that there’s heckling; my frustration is the fact that you yourself should be controlling yourselves. If you want me to do it, you will not like it.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When the member raised this issue a week or two ago, I spoke to him privately and I told him in the House that we actually are piloting something pretty exciting in Kitchener–Waterloo, and that is simultaneous dispatch, where the firefighters and the ambulances will be notified simultaneously so that care can get to people as quickly as possible. This is an important move forward, Speaker.

The request from Mr. Seiling, as I understand it, is to have all emergency notified at once. That is a very significant departure from where we are now, Speaker. We are looking at ways to improve response times, and I think simultaneous dispatch is a very exciting option. I’m pleased that it will be piloted first in Kitchener–Waterloo.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Finding a job is a worry to thousands of people in southwestern Ontario. There are 23,000 people out of work in London, and Windsor’s unemployment rates remain in the double digits. Can families in southwestern Ontario, who are worried about their jobs, expect the southwestern economic development bill to become law this spring?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for that friendly question. It’s important, I think, that people throughout southwestern Ontario are made aware of the status of the southwestern Ontario development fund, because, unfortunately, it’s locked in this Legislature right now, waiting for third reading, because the PC Party has been ringing the bells. It hasn’t allowed that very important piece of legislation to pass. The result is, because the PC Party do not support the investments that we want to make, and the NDP support, in southwestern Ontario, those investments at this point in time are being delayed. Jobs, important jobs, in southwestern Ontario are not being created.

I join with the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, in urging the PC Party to let us get that bill through this Legislature.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let us support the economy in southwestern Ontario.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let us support the workers—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Another reminder to all members that when I say, “Thank you,” that is the end of your answer or question.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d appreciate it if you’d say it sooner—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d appreciate it if you’d stop it.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Back to the Minister of Economic Development: This government said that passing the southwestern economic development bill was an urgent priority. The government House leader said: “Southwestern Ontario needs this sort of support sooner rather than later.... We want to get it through the Legislature.”

And the Liberal MPP for Windsor West said: “I ... hope this fund is up and running in the spring.”

New Democrats agree that we should be getting this fund up and running now, so why is this government dragging its heels, unlikely to pass its own bill before this session ends next week?

Hon. Brad Duguid: It was fully our intention, and we expressed that, to have that money flowing into southwestern Ontario, and into eastern Ontario, for that matter, by this June. But because of the tactics of the PC Party, because of their lack of support for jobs in southwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: But let me exchange quotes with the member opposite, because she had some good quotes. I have some as well.

This is a quote from Mayor John Grace, from the London Free Press, and this is what he had to say: “It is the wrong time to be playing politics, the wrong time to hold this up. The last thing we need here is another stall tactic.”

That’s all we’ve had from the party opposite, Mr. Speaker, is stall tactics. We need to move forward and create jobs in southwestern Ontario.

CHILDHOOD OBESITY

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, getting our children to eat right and exercise is the best way to confront the growing childhood obesity. But as a mother of a 14-year-old, I know how hard it can be sometimes to get our kids to eat right and exercise. That is why this government has started programs such as EatRight Ontario, the Healthy Schools initiative, and curriculum revisions.

But, Minister, there’s still more to be done, and I understand that is why you’re striking a Healthy Kids panel. Could you tell this House how this panel will help reduce childhood obesity in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for this very important question. I’m very proud to say that the government is making the right choice to reduce the rate of childhood obesity in this province. We’ve committed to the ambitious goal to reduce the rate by 20% over five years.

But in order to achieve this goal, we cannot work alone. We must work closely with all of the sectors that have a role to play in reducing childhood obesity. These include our schools, industry, communities, other levels of government and others.

The panel members are independent experts. They’re recognized leaders in their fields. They possess important qualities which will be beneficial to their work. They’ve got an expertise and knowledge of the factors that influence obesity rates, a demonstrated commitment to address childhood obesity, and they are champions and leaders who will really drive this change we need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Minister. The creation of this panel, Minister, depends on the collaboration of a number of stakeholders who are interested in reducing childhood obesity. I know this panel has generated a lot of interest in my own riding, with groups like TransformNation doing a lot of the grassroots work on this.

Minister, can you tell me and the House, why is it important to tackle childhood obesity?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s a bit of a cliché‚ but it’s true that the children are the future of this province. Addressing the factors that contribute to obesity early in a person’s life helps reduce the likelihood of being overweight and obese in adolescence and adulthood.

Childhood obesity is strongly linked to increased risk of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, gall bladder disease, stroke, and certain types of cancer, including breast and colon cancer. Working to find ways to reduce and prevent childhood obesity will greatly change the lives of many children in this province and will also reduce the burden on our Ontario health care system in years to come.

Bringing together this panel of experts from diverse backgrounds offers Ontario a unique opportunity. By the end of this year, the panel will provide me with a set of prioritized, evidence-based recommendations that build on existing initiatives and create new ones.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is for the Minister of Finance. Earlier this winter, you proudly announced that slots operations would be shut down at Ontario’s racetracks by March 31, 2013. You then announced that slot machines would be removed from the province’s three border racetracks—Fort Erie, Windsor and Hiawatha—on April 30, 2012.

Sadly, following its annual board meeting yesterday, the Fort Erie Live Racing Consortium said that Fort Erie Race Track would close permanently, putting hundreds of hard-working men and women out of work.

Minister, please inform the over 60,000 people employed by the horse racing industry what your plan is for them now that you have single-handedly destroyed their industry and their livelihoods.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, so the Legislature—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Maybe they can go to work at GM.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Last year, horse racing at Fort Erie received $8.6 million from the slots-at-racetracks subsidy. Above and beyond that—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Above and beyond that, the government provided an additional $6 million over the past three years.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, second time.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: And above that, the government provided another $1 million from economic development and trade.

Earlier this year, the member for Niagara Falls asked for a business plan—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: For a member who has spoken passionately about corporate welfare, this simply wasn’t sustainable. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will have more to say about the people in the industry very shortly, but make no mistake, unlike you when you were—

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

Before I move to the supplementary, I will now tell you that I will look to each member and start identifying you, which will lead to a warning. The warning is only one.

Supplementary, please.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Since the MPP from Niagara Falls won’t stand up in his place and ask the tough questions on behalf of his constituents, I will. I would again direct my question to the Minister of Finance.

The historic Fort Erie Race Track’s first day of operation was Wednesday, June 16, 1897—and sadly, the final day of racing will be October 30. This is a racetrack that has survived not only the Great Depression but also two world wars and other turbulence throughout its long and storied history. Unfortunately the 115-year-old racetrack will be joining the Windsor Raceway in line for mothballing by this minister. What is your plan for the hundreds of men and women in Fort Erie and Windsor who now find themselves out of work as a result of your poor decisions?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That member’s party, when it came to saving GM, said, “Let 400,000 jobs be lost.” Shame on you. That member—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That member ought to stand up for his riding. Instead of blocking the southwest Ontario economic development fund, he ought to let it be passed.

I’ll remind the member opposite that the mayors of London and other southwestern Ontario communities wrote him directly and said that he doesn’t have a clue when it comes to horse racing.

We are making the right choices. There will continue to be a horse racing industry. The only difference is that it will be strong and viable and self-supporting. It won’t be reliant on handouts from a government that prefers to close hospitals and fund racetracks. Their priorities are wrong, they’re different from ours and—

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

MERCURY POISONING

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Acting Premier. For decades, the communities of Grassy Narrows and Whitedog First Nation have been dealing with the after-effects of mercury poisoning. A new study by the world’s leading mercury poisoning scientist, Dr. Harada, shows that 59% of community members are suffering from the effects of this poisoning, including 44% of those who were born after the dumping of mercury had ended. Despite that, despite the cessation of dumping, this proves that the poisoning continues.

Now we find out that this poisoning will affect many generations. They are forced to rely on scientists in Japan to monitor their health and the impact because this government walked away in the 1990s. Will this government act immediately to sit down with Grassy Narrows and Whitedog to listen to their concerns?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, let me say that this is a dreadful situation that never should have happened. The dumping that happened in the 1960s and 1970s never should have happened.

I welcome the people in the gallery who have come. I will be going out to the front lawn today to meet with them. What I commit is that I will do everything I can to re-engage the federal government and the community in a conversation about this situation.

I have received the report. I have had a chance to look at it. I know that there’s a lot of work that has been done—mercury levels are down about 87%—but there’s still a consumption advisory in place on the fish. That’s why it’s very important that we continue this conversation. But I will say to the member opposite: We weren’t in office in the 1990s, and so the decisions that were made in the 1990s are not the decisions that we have made.

What we have said is, we want to engage the community. In the supplementary, I will go through the sequence of initiatives that we’ve taken.

Interjection.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Residents from both communities have travelled thousands of kilometres to the Legislature today, and as the minister pointed out, they are joining us here in the members’ gallery this morning. They wanted to meet with the Premier, but they received no response.

In the 1980s, a compensation fund was set up for community members to help them deal with the after-effects of this poisoning. Unfortunately, many have found it nearly impossible to access the compensation that they deserve. In one case, a woman who was used as the test case in court to prove the existence of mercury poisoning has not even received compensation herself.

I ask again: Will this government meet with Grassy Narrows First Nation to address mercury poisoning instead of dodging their basic responsibilities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely. I will stand in for the Premier and I will be meeting with the community; absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to be clear that on April 21, 2010, the then minister met with a community delegation led by Chief Simon Fobister. In June 2010, we formed an interministerial working group to look at the issues that had come out of the Harada report. In June 2011, staff from my ministry met with Chief Fobister on the community’s concerns. Since then, we’ve been waiting for a response from the community to set up that next meeting. That needs to happen. If the communication has not been in place and we need to reach out and set up that meeting, that’s what we will do, because that ADM committee needs to have the input of the community so we understand the situation better.

I’ll be talking to the folks on the lawn today. I will be having that conversation, and we will re-engage; absolutely.

FIRST NATIONS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is also for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Minister, a big part of the work of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is to work with First Nations and the federal government to find solutions to long-standing historical grievances. Just recently, we saw a settlement with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation to resolve a flooding claim stemming from events that happened over 100 years ago.

Can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs tell us more about Ontario’s general approach to resolving these types of historical grievances?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m really very pleased to be able to talk about the claims process, because it’s one of the ways in which we’re working to build those stronger relationships with the aboriginal community.

The successful resolution of the flooding claim that my colleague mentioned will create a positive economic environment for Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as well as for the regional economy and for nearby communities, because I think it’s important to understand that the land claims process doesn’t just affect the First Nation but affects the broader community as well.

We’re acting on the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry, which we set up, to strengthen relationships.

Land claim negotiations, we believe, are by far the prefer\able alternative to litigation. Negotiation settlements result in enduring solutions. They strengthen relationships and they provide certainty for aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to learn about Ontario’s approach in taking its responsibility to work with First Nations, the federal government and local communities to settle these types of historic land claims.

Speaker, I understand that eastern Ontario is actually home to the largest territory subject to a claim currently under negotiation in Ontario. The Algonquin land claim has been under negotiation since 1994, and Ontarians are beginning to ask questions as to the status of that negotiation.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could the minister please provide an update and let us know what the settlement of this long-standing land claim will mean for communities in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I guess the first thing I want to say about that eastern Ontario land claim is that public consultation is an integral part of the process. I was asked this week, earlier, by the fishers and anglers whether there would be ongoing public consultation, and indeed that is our commitment. That will happen.

Canada, Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario are working together to resolve a comprehensive land claim through a negotiated settlement, and it will produce, at its completion, Ontario’s first modern-day, constitutionally protected treaty. This is a major, major process.

Again, settlement of the claim will provide certainty for the Algonquins of Ontario regarding rights but also to the larger community regarding land and natural resources. It will improve eastern Ontario’s business climate, and it will allow the Algonquin people and their neighbours to work together.

Public consultation is ongoing and will be comprehensive.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. Last Saturday, an individual out on bail unleashed a reign of terror in the Eaton Centre. We now know that Mr. Husbands was on house arrest, related to a sexual assault charge stemming from a November 2010 incident. Minister, yesterday, when referring to the house arrest system in the province of Ontario, you said you think the system is working well. Do you believe the victims of the Eaton Centre rampage believe that?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, obviously, our thoughts and prayers go out to all of the victims who were involved last Saturday in this very tragic event.

The system of bail that we have in the province of Ontario and in Canada has been in existence since the mid-1970s, and it has existed that way under all governments of this province and of this country, Speaker.

It is the responsibility of the judiciary, under the Bail Reform Act, to set out the conditions of bail that are applicable in a particular situation. In this particular situation, bail was granted. An order was made—we can’t release the terms of that—by the court etc., but that’s the situation that the gentleman was under. The matter of the trial that he was involved with started some time ago, and it is to continue later on this month with respect to the sexual assault charge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, the people of Ontario are absolutely disturbed, but now they’re looking for answers. The individual had a history of criminal activity. Someone known to police for having a violent history killed a 24-year-old man and randomly shot several others, including a 13-year-old boy who was shot in the head. You have a responsibility to ensure that all available conditions are imposed when individuals refuse to comply with their bail conditions.

Minister, how can you say that the bail system is working when it leads to one man dead and several victims?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, the rules relating to bail, that have been in existence for the last 35 years, are part of the federal system of laws that we administer at the provincial level, Speaker.

The first trial date with respect to this particular issue—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. John Gerretsen: —before the court on right now, was set in September 2011. That trial is continuing.

There have been many individuals who are out on bail under a system that has worked relatively well since the mid-1970s, Speaker. Obviously, in this particular case, something happened last Saturday that never should have happened. The system of bail that we have has worked relatively well in the province of Ontario for the last 35 years.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The King family in my riding have five-year-old twins diagnosed with autism. Dr. King and his wife wanted the best possible life for their twins, so they paid out of pocket, at great financial cost, for the IBI therapy, and they sat on a wait-list. Finally, after years of waiting, they’re being told their kids are no longer eligible, because they’ve become proficient at cognitive tests being used as the sole determinant for therapy. Does the minister think that this situation sounds just?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member opposite for the question. Obviously, the services that we provide for families with children with autism are a high priority of this government. That’s why, in fact, since 2003, we’ve quadrupled the resources that we’ve provided to these services: the important IBI programs that the member opposite references. I’d be happy to discuss this specific issue with the member opposite to—I’m not familiar with the specific case, but I do want to say that as well, last year, we added an additional $25 million in funding for ABA treatment, which this individual may be eligible for.

It’s an important option available for families with children with autism. It’s an option, actually, that often is a preferable one for families that they choose for a variety of reasons.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: The therapy is being denied solely on the basis of an IQ test, ignoring the behaviour issues, which also greatly impact opportunities for these kids. Even worse, it seems the criteria being used in our region—in Niagara—are not the same as what’s being used in other parts of the province.

Does the min,ister think that it is fair that the eligibility for IBI therapy is dependent upon the region in which you live rather than on the benefit that it would bring to these children?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again. I have to admit that the characterization of this particular challenge does not make sense to me in terms of the policies that are in place across the province. I want to say, in terms of eligibility as well as the decision taken when IBI or ABA is no longer being provided to a specific child, that there are important measures in place. Obviously, we talked to the organization, and ultimately it’s the organization providing the services that provides us with the guidance and advice in terms of whether that service is useful.

But we’re also setting up a clinical expert committee to help us give a greater role to families so that it’s taken away from any sort of centralized decision-making process. In fact, it’s experts who provide guidance to the families and to the organizations involved, to determine in fact whether a particular service is being of benefit to that child. But again, I’m happy to talk about this specific case.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today in question period, I heard a couple of times where comments were made about other members. I find them disturbing. I would wish, as a caution and maybe as reflection, that we think twice before we make accusations towards another member of their duties.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1138 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Rod Jackson: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Kelly MacDougall and Chris Bedwell—they’re self-advocates w