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

June 6, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Jun-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 6 June 2002 Jeudi 6 juin 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'EMPLOI

DES POMPIERS VOLONTAIRES

ELECTRICITY CONTRACTS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'EMPLOI

DES POMPIERS VOLONTAIRES

ELECTRICITY CONTRACTS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'EMPLOI

DES POMPIERS VOLONTAIRES

ELECTRICITY CONTRACTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

CANCER SCREENING

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

GOLDEN JUBILEE OF

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

LEGAL AID

RANDY HOSACK

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

BRUCE NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ONTARIO BUDGET

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

HYDRO ONE

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

OPTOMETRISTS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

EDUCATION FUNDING

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

EDUCATION REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RELIABLE ENERGY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA FIABILITÉ

DE L'ÉNERGIE ET LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS

Thursday 6 June 2002 Jeudi 6 juin 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'EMPLOI

DES POMPIERS VOLONTAIRES

Mr Arnott moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 in order to protect the employment of volunteer firefighters / Projet de loi 30, Loi

modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la prévention et la protection contre l'incendie afin de protéger l'emploi des pompiers volontaires.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I am honoured to begin second reading debate of my private member's bill, Bill 30, Volunteer Firefighters

Employment Protection Act.

In much of my riding of Waterloo-Wellington and in many communities across Ontario, citizens rely on volunteer firefighters for emergency response and

protection. Be it fires at our homes, farms or businesses, or accidents on our highways, they are often the first on the scene, taking command of the effort of protecting the public and of saving

lives.

Their work is about as essential as it gets, and knowing that their work is volunteered and provided in the spirit of giving back to their communities, their

contributions have a very special value which is assigned to them by their neighbours and fellow citizens who support them. My bill is intended to protect and support their work and uphold the

regard given to our volunteers in Ontario by protecting the right of paid, full-time firefighters to volunteer as firefighters in their home communities.

The fact is, volunteer fire departments in Ontario rely to a great extent on the services offered by paid, full-time firefighters who choose to volunteer where

they live. By volunteering, these full-time firefighters, or so-called double-hatters, provide highly valued expertise, skills and training for fellow volunteers. The double-hatters have the

opportunity to share their skills, give back to their communities and be leaders in their communities.

Double-hatters are key contributors to our volunteer fire departments, and it has been brought to my attention that they are facing pressure tactics from their

union in some communities. These tactics are aggressive, heavy-handed and aimed at putting an end to the volunteer service provided by these individuals. Bill 30 would protect double-hatters from

such tactics by amending the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to ensure that firefighters cannot be disciplined, expelled, lose representation or lose their full-time jobs solely on the basis of

their volunteer service. Based on what has been brought to my attention, I can say to my colleagues in this House that the need for this legislation is as clear as the need we have in every

community to have the right to volunteer on our own free time.

The need for a law clarifying and upholding the right to volunteer was first brought to my attention by Doug Smith, chief of the Puslinch fire department. I've

known Doug for years, and he came to see me in my constituency office on March 18. He was very concerned that the Puslinch fire department would be weakened if the union forced their double-hatters

to quit. Members here will also appreciate and understand the fact that the Puslinch fire department is one of the busiest volunteer brigades in the province, because Highway 401 runs through their

township, and almost one third of their firefighters are double-hatters.

Chief Doug Smith became a member of a committee of the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario to support and promote legislation that would protect the right to

volunteer. We are debating such legislation today, and I want to commend Doug for his leadership and thank him for joining us here in the members' gallery, along with his volunteer firefighter

colleagues Dave Thompson, Adam Gall, Jim Richards, Clare Weber from St Jacobs, Bill Burns and Bob Burns. Thank you, all of you, for making this trip to Toronto to support Bill 30 and for all you do

to keep our communities safe.

I also heard from township of Woolwich mayor Bill Strauss, who raised this issue with me on March 28 and gave me a municipal alert bulletin from the Association

of Municipalities of Ontario or, as we know it, AMO. We were advised by AMO that the International Association of Fire Fighters is exerting pressure on full-time firefighters to stop them from

volunteering in their home communities. They indicated that firefighters are being charged and threatened with being charged, and that expulsion from their union could result in the loss of their

jobs. AMO also made it clear that municipalities and their taxpayers cannot afford the cost of losing the service of double-hatters. Recognizing the problem for volunteer fire departments, the

council of the township of Guelph-Eramosa passed a resolution stating their concerns and forwarded AMO's alert to me.

When the Legislature resumed sitting in May, I spoke with members of our government caucus about the problem and found that several others shared my concerns.

For example, there's a problem in Whitchurch-Stouffville, which will be further addressed by my colleague the MPP for Oak Ridges in his presentation. I also appreciated having the opportunity on a

number of occasions to discuss my bill with the Minister of Public Safety and Security, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Deputy Premier.

Based on what has been discussed in Waterloo-Wellington and here at Queen's Park, it is clear to me that this bill is needed sooner rather than later, and I'm

glad we're able to debate it today. I want to thank the member for Ottawa-Vanier for making her private member's time available to me by trading our scheduled allotments of time.

To help demonstrate the need for this bill, I was advised in a letter from Chief Doug Smith that nine of his volunteers in Puslinch are double-hatters. He states

the issue clearly: "The obvious threat to safety is the withdrawal of the double-hatters from the volunteer service." I say it ought to be clear to all members that losing experienced personnel

also means losing the standard of public safety that has been built up over years of hard work and teamwork. Chief Smith also adds that it takes four to five years of experience to become fully

competent in delivering worthwhile fire prevention programs.

I also received letters of support for Bill 30 from a number of fire chiefs, including Brent Barnes of the Arthur area fire department, John McDougall of the

town of Erin, Clare Weber from St Jacobs, John Ritz of the township of Wilmot, Ron Taves of Baden, Dan Hitchcock of Guelph-Eramosa, Dennis Kaufman of Clifford and Kevin Karley of Maryhill. I've

also received letters of support from the councils of the townships of Wellesley and Centre Wellington and from the town of Caledon and the city of Kawartha Lakes.

Since I introduced Bill 30 in the Legislature on May 22, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has endorsed my bill and has written to every MPP in the

House asking them to support the bill, and also sent an alert to municipalities in support of Bill 30. Jim Richards, president of the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, sent a memo to all MPPs

asking them to support this bill, stating that countless double-hatters have already resigned in fear of losing their jobs due to this union action.

I've also been contacted by Tim Lee, who lives in the city of Kawartha Lakes and who is a full-time firefighter in Whitby. Tim has been charged by his union for

volunteering in Little Britain, where he lives and has chosen to raise his family. He indicated to me that his local has moved quickly to put him before a trial board and further described the

union tactics in the following manner: "No firefighter deserves to go through the harassment, mistreatment, embarrassment and stress that I have been enduring since December 14, 2001, when my local

started its campaign of intimidation, threats and mistreatment against me for the `crime' of serving the community I grew up in and love."

Not everyone supports the principle of enabling full-time firefighters to volunteer. The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has expressed its

concerns about this bill. While I had no intention of withdrawing it, I met with their president, Henry Watson, and vice-president, Fred LeBlanc, on May 30 to hear their concerns and discuss my

reasons for introducing this legislation. They mentioned that members who volunteer could become exhausted, and that would impact on their performance. To this I say that the kind of person who

volunteers will always find a way to contribute in their home community in their own free time and they should be trusted to govern themselves and uphold their commitments.

They also mentioned to me concerns about greater health risks due to increased exposure to harmful agents. There may be some validity to this point, and I

suggest that it should be thoroughly studied by the office of the fire marshal. Finally, they say that municipalities face risks by relying too heavily on divided loyalties. But I say that

municipalities and individuals who serve their communities can best decide how their expertise and skills should be utilized.

As I close my introductory remarks on this debate, I ask all members to consider the issue as it really is. If you support the right to volunteer and to protect

fire departments from heavy-handed tactics, I hope you will support Bill 30. If you want to uphold standards of public safety, then support our volunteer fire departments, which have said that

removing double-hatters will weaken their forces. Volunteer fire departments across Ontario have made our safety standards strong over the years, and by supporting Bill 30 today you will support

dynamic teams of firefighters who are working to make our public safety standards even stronger for tomorrow. I would appreciate the support of all members for Bill 30.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'm saddened and honoured and privileged to speak to the bill. I want to start by making a very definitive statement

about the position of each of the members in this House. I would say, with respect, that we are talking about the firefighting profession across the board and that we unequivocally support our

professional firefighters, our volunteer firefighters and anyone who works in education, prevention and suppression of fire in our communities. I want to make it very clear from the onset that this

should not and cannot be a discussion of the value of firefighters across Ontario. The debate should be about this particular bill in its present form.

The form this bill takes starts on two premises. The first is that it's the total responsibility of municipalities to support firefighting in the province of

Ontario. That's a fallacy; that's a mistake. Quite frankly, the monies that are obtained by the municipalities are not solely the responsibility of this government. Our party on this side, and

Dalton McGuinty, offered an immediate solution to part of this problem by providing the Ontario security fund option that was available to this government, which would have made $100 million

available to the people of Ontario for safety, and $50 million of that would have been money spent directly on municipalities to provide for the issues that are being brought up by the member

opposite in terms of his offer.

I want to make sure that everyone understands that when this offer was made, it was totally rejected by the government side, saying that it cost too much. The

reality of the day was that it was money already available to the government to reprioritize its spending. At the time, the government offered a bill that said they would spend approximately $25

million. As I said in my first response to Bill 148, I think the expenditure of $25 million was laudable but it was not enough. In this case, it would have provided $50 million that was going to be

available to our communities to improve firefighting across the province.

The member opposite also said that they said, "We have safety and standards issues with this double-hatter issue." Quite frankly, let's take a step back and say

to the member opposite that the municipalities are shortchanged. Why would they not want to support this bill simply because the government has not provided enough funds for them to have those

standards set in the first place? The municipalities are saying to us, "We don't have the money. We just don't have the money."

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member from London-Fanshawe, come to order.

Mr Levac: The members on the opposite side are quite prepared to heckle, because we're talking about the real issue: the underfunding of our

municipal fire departments across Ontario. We've now turned this into an urban versus rural issue, and the fact that we've done that is deplorable.

I also want to make a couple of points about the professional firefighters. The member introduced the bill on May 22, and he met with them on May 30. I was told

that the meeting was respectful and both sides tried to make points. The member was putting the bill before that, and he knew it. How soon did he meet with all of the other organizations in this

case? There are threats on both sides of, "Your side is wrong." We're not getting the right answers here because AMO sent out a memo that basically said there are over 2,000 double-hatters. The

fire marshal himself said it's between 600 and 1,000. I continued to ask the question, and when pressed, he said, "Well, it's on the low side of the 600 to 1,000. It's probably somewhere between

600 and 700 double-hatters."

The reality of the day is another point that needs to be made, and that is one of justice. The reality we're talking about here is making sure those

municipalities receive the training that they say is not there because the double-hatters have to go to those municipalities and provide that training. Why would the government not then make sure

that all those municipalities have accessible the training that's necessary in order to allow us to do that? It's not happening. It's an abdication of responsibility.

A second question: why would the government not step forward and say, "This is a priority for us and this is something we should be doing"? The private member's

bill is addressing a small need in four communities across the province. There's an inconsistency across the argument. The inconsistency arises when we start looking at some municipalities without

being able to solve this problem in negotiation. The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters are now in concert with the minister's office that's responsible for fire safety, public safety and security.

They're talking with the fire chiefs' association. They're talking with AMO. They're in the middle of these negotiations to try to resolve concerns within their constitution.

That brings up the second point about somebody reaching into the constitution of an organized group. Is this going to start happening now? Where does it stop?

Where does it start?

We see what happened with Bill 160 where we were told that this funding formula doesn't work and now we're going to be heroes and correct it when they were told

all along it's not the way to proceed; Bill 58, Hydro. You can name examples where the government has proceeded with government bills and it always has to come back and correct them: city financing

and taxation, seven different bills at one time, one right after the other to correct the mistakes they were making when they were getting advice from the stakeholders on how to solve the problem.

Now in the middle of these negotiations that are taking place between the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters and all stakeholders we have legislation that comes in and says, "This is how it's going

to be done." That's not good negotiation.

If you think this bill is going to solve the problem that's being alluded to in a dramatic way -- there's intimidation going on and there are things going on

between the two associations -- it's not going to happen.

Mr Arnott: You're saying there is no intimidation?

Mr Levac: What did I say? Pay attention, Ted.

Mr Arnott: I'm listening intently.

Mr Levac: If you think this bill is going to solve the problem you're alluding to, you're dead wrong. You're sending it underground, and that's

a problem.

Mr Arnott: Are you in support of intimidation?

Mr Levac: Quite frankly, what you're talking about is doing the same type of intimidation to a group. You're putting a bill out there that says,

"This is how you're going to write your constitution." That, to me, represents how the government escapes all the time. It's always download, cut and burden the municipalities with those

responsibilities. How else are they supposed to respond?

Interjections.

Mr Levac: If you were providing in the first place that activity that was necessary for them, in order for them to receive the funding for the

training that's necessary, the reliance on that particular issue would not take place. The government is not funding those communities appropriately, particularly the small communities that have

been saying to you for many years, including all governments, that there's a double standard. There's enough money being raised by some municipalities that they're providing those services.

The fire marshal is making recommendations that are all over the map. In one breath they're saying, "You know what? This might solve the problem," but then again

if you look at the four other options that are availble, there are pros and cons for each one of them. At the end of the day, the fire marshal made it quite clear -- and if I have to read it, I

will -- that unless every single two-hatter was removed instantly, there would not be safety and health issues. It's not there.

There are questions that need to be answered. What about WSIB? Who's going to be responsible for anyone who gets hurt and, tragically and unfortunately if it

does happen, God forbid, there's a death? Who's going to be responsible? The municipality that has the professional firefighter on it? The local municipality that has the volunteer?

In terms of the volunteers we also speak of the average salary, the average wage, a wide-ranging issue. There are some who say, "You know what? We should be

volunteering for no cost at all." Others are saying they're paying up to $30 an hour. The professional training that one is talking about should be coming from a standard that's established by the

province of Ontario --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Oxford, come to order.

Mr Levac: The province of Ontario is abdicating its responsibility to ensure -- we now have a private members' bill that's going to step right

in the middle of this. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed. I'm also disappointed --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm not warning the member for Oxford again.

Mr Levac: I'm also concerned, definitely concerned, about anyone using intimidation tactics on any individual in this province. I don't accept

the reality that this is the solution, because you're simply sending it underground. You're not providing for the government's responsibility. You're not providing for the things that I said at the

very beginning.

What's happening here? Now the government is able to step away from the fact that it has created a crisis between urban and rural communities. It has not funded

the small rural, small urban communities. They need that. The Ontario security fund that was proposed by my leader, Dalton McGuinty, provided an opportunity to have $50 million provided to those

communities, at their call, for the very reason we're talking about today. We indicated quite clearly in the

preamble that that money was for safety, for security, for improvement of the fire

department and the police department in those communities. It was rejected by this government. Why? Because we're talking about cost containment. We're not talking about safety and security; we're

talking about cost containment.

Quite frankly, I can't support a bill that sticks its hand in the middle of somebody's constitution, and in the middle of the negotiations that are taking place

that are slowly and methodically solving that issue. I challenge each of the organizations, each and every one, to do so in the best interest of the public at large.

The last comment I would make to you is that if this bill gets to committee, I'm going to be offering amendments that I'm sure the government will have to

consider because they know it's the right thing to do. If they don't accept this amendment, it's because they're abdicating their responsibility to provide those communities with the funds to do

that. I'll guarantee you, if you provide those funds, AMO will be on side with this request by the professional firefighters that it receive the total number of funds required. Their argument right

now is simply financial.

I do not support this bill.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I want to commend my colleague the member from Waterloo-Wellington for bringing this important piece of legislation

forward.

I'm shocked at the member from Brant who suggests that by bringing this debate forward in the House somehow this issue is going to be pushed underground. I

believe that is an insult to every stakeholder involved in this, suggesting that a public debate in the Legislature of this province on an important issue would somehow force an issue to be dealt

with in a dishonest way, that somehow the stakeholders here would not comply with the direction, the legislation, of this province. I don't believe that for a minute and I really believe the member

needs to reconsider his position.

I'm supporting this legislation today, because I believe that at stake is a fundamental principle of rights. I believe that if this legislation is not passed, if

somehow we don't deal with this issue, then this Legislature effectively is condoning discrimination against a profession, against full-time firefighters in this province, who do not have the

rights any other worker in his province has, to do in their spare time what they choose to do. I believe it's fundamentally wrong. I commend the member for bringing this forward and we have a

responsibility to do something about it.

I have a letter here that was sent to a firefighter in Whitchurch-Stouffville by the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association. "With the firefighters in

Stouffville currently trying to negotiate their first collective agreement, your involvement as a part-time firefighter will definitely have a negative impact on other full-time firefighters in

that region" -- no reference to health and safety issues. This is purely and outrightly an issue of union negotiation. I think it's fundamentally wrong and we cannot endorse it.

I have a letter from the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville: "Urgent action by your government is required. In Stouffville's case, 24 out of 55, or 44%, of our

volunteers are double-hatters. Seven have received threatening letters and I expect the other 17 will receive similar correspondence very shortly." That letter from the firefighters' association,

and this is to a full-time firefighter in this province, goes on to say, "We are requesting that you comply with the TPFFA constitution ... and stop performing your duties as a part-time

firefighter. This will allow the firefighters in Stouffville to negotiate a collective agreement without the negative impact of full-time firefighters masquerading as part-time firefighters." This

is not about health and safety. This is about denying a particular group in our province the right to do in their spare time as they choose to do.

We have a problem in Richmond Hill as well. I have a letter I'd like to quote from: "To suggest to the two-hatters' permanent employer" -- this is the

municipality -- "that their employment" -- that is the full-time firefighters' employment -- "should be terminated or threatened because the two-hatter is not a member in good standing of his or

her firefighters' association is an abuse of the association's power. The employees' work record should be the basis of any actions regarding employment tenure, not conformity with arbitrary rules

of a union" today.

I will be supporting this legislation, not because I'm not suggesting that there may be issues to be worked out or that there are problems. There may even be

some challenges on the funding side. I'm not denying that. But fundamentally here before us in the House today, this legislation deals with giving rights to men and women in our province who are

denied those rights as a result of being excluded from a piece of labour legislation. We need to rectify that. This will restore their rights with every other person, every other worker in Ontario.

We have a responsibility as a Legislature to do that today.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 30, introduced by my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington. I

think it's a very appropriate bill to deal with the issue of volunteerism in our communities.

I want to start off, Mr Speaker, by thanking him for introducing the bill, but more so, to you and the members of the Legislature, to point out my personal bias.

I have had the opportunity to serve as a volunteer firefighter for 25 years. I want to say that at the conclusion of the 25 years, because I was elected to this place, I no longer could attend to

my duties as a volunteer firefighter, so I took my leave. The fire marshal of the province gave me a plaque, and it hangs in my office, right alongside the plaque I got for being a minister of the

crown. I can tell you I take as great a pride in looking at that plaque, having served as a volunteer firefighter, as having been a minister of the crown in Ontario.

I think it's a noble profession. At many times in my 25 years in the fire service I was told that when the firefighters go to an emergency, the fire is just as

hot for volunteers as it is for full-time firefighters. So I think it tells us that it's very important that we have our volunteers well trained and that we have the best possible community people

to volunteer to do this job.

I agree with my colleague from Oak Ridges, who suggests we should not take away a full-time firefighter's right to volunteer. There seems to be some argument

that these are being forced into volunteering, that somehow we're taking that expertise and saying, "We want you to take all this expertise you've gained working in the full-time fire department

and we are forcing you to take it into the volunteer regime." Nothing could be further from the truth. These are community-minded people who want to help their friends and neighbours in time of

need through the volunteer fire service. I think we should do all we can to make that possible so they can provide that service.

As I said, I started with the volunteer fire department in 1971. We set up the new fire department. At the time the department was being organized by a full-time

firefighter who had served in the armed forces. He became the fire chief and he served as fire chief for some 20 years. At that time we went to a retirement party, and his comment was that the

hardest thing he's ever had to do in the fire service as a volunteer was retiring at age 65 because he wanted to continue serving his community. I think this is the type of opportunity that these

full-time firefighters who work in the volunteer sector are providing for us. They're doing it because they want to.

The member opposite was -- I think they call it in political terms fearmongering, that somehow this is going to be a great problem with workers' compensation.

In the volunteer department, as in the full-time department, the WSIB covers, regardless of where you work in the province of Ontario. The municipality buys the coverage for their volunteers at a

set rate. My municipality where I was a volunteer purchased the highest rate possible of any worker to get workers' compensation. So it makes absolutely no difference to the individual where they

are working. If they are injured in the service of their community, they will be covered by WSIB. So I don't see that as a great reason.

The other thing that was brought to our attention was that there's a problem in that you may be volunteering for 12 hours fighting a fire and then be asked to

go to work. I understand the problem but I would just suggest to you that many firefighters, for whatever reason, because of how they have to be on call seven days a week, have times when they are

not working and they'd like to do other jobs. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether they're working 12 hours driving the tractor ploughing the field or whether they're fighting a fire, if

they're called in on their full-time job, they will be tired if they were working the previous 12 hours. So I don't believe that's a legitimate reason not to support this bill.

I would submit to the House that the right of these individuals to volunteer should not be taken away and communities should not be deprived of their expertise

to help them in time of need.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak in support of this bill. I would urge everyone in this House, including those who have spoken against it, to

support this bill for the betterment of our rural communities.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I wish I could say that I'm pleased to be standing to debate this particular bill,

but to tell you the truth I'm not pleased to have to be dealing with this issue in this way in this House. Frankly, I wish it hadn't come to this. It's sad really that things have been allowed to

degenerate the way they have.

I suppose it's perhaps helpful to say no one's guilty but all of us are responsible. This issue's been kicking around for a long time. I can recall some

conversations back in October, making some suggestions about how to get this thing resolved. Clearly, the issue hasn't been resolved and it has caused a great deal of difficulty.

We talk a lot about rights; we talk a fair bit about choices that from time to time need to be made. I want to say to members of the House that this is a very

difficult issue for me, having grown up in a blue-collar labour family with an inclination to have a knee-jerk reaction often simply in favour of my union brothers and sisters. But there's a

broader set of rights involved here that I think need to be spoken to.

It is difficult for me, as a small-town mayor who relied on a volunteer department and the expertise of two-hatters in my community, to conceive of someone

with expertise, who's acknowledged as having expertise, who's my neighbour living beside me and, if my house catches fire and another volunteer is quite competent but maybe doesn't have the same

skill set as the two-hatter who's willing to volunteer in my community, having to say to me, "I'm sorry your house is on fire, Ted. I can't help. I've got a union problem with this." It just

doesn't strike me as being right.

It also doesn't strike me as being right that in any municipality across this great province and country of ours -- by the way, I think Ontario is the only

province that doesn't provide protection for two-hatters; perhaps the Northwest Territories as well -- we would say, "You don't have the right to use your skill set in defence of life and

property."

In addition, there's a community set of rights here, and old history and heritage. This isn't about setting up something new. It's about protecting something

that has been in place for decades and centuries; that really, in large part, has represented the spirit of communities.

It also talks to municipal rights. We know that AMO is on side with trying to protect the two-hatter situation and others.

I was to have five minutes. I now have 19 seconds. I would just say that the fire marshal's report made reference to a number of options, none of which was the

status quo.

Interjection.

Mr McMeekin: Just give me a second. I'm on your side on this one, OK?

If it's helpful, I'd like to read: "Unlike municipal solutions which may vary depending on the option selected by each municipality, the legislative solution

would provide an expedient and uniform solution to the two-hatter issue."

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On behalf of New Democrats here at Queen's Park, I have carefully read this proposed bill -- indeed, a bill

that received first reading and is here today on debate for second reading. Mr Arnott has been very generous and co-operative in providing all of the material that he has acquired supporting this

bill.

It includes a letter of commendation from AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Quite frankly, that raises red flags right away for New

Democrats.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: Well, the track record of AMO when it comes to working women and men has not been particularly strong.

As well, I have consulted extensively on my own. I appreciate the participation that I've had in the formulation of our position during the course of those

consultations.

Bill 84 changed the face of firefighting dramatically in this province. Firefighters fought Bill 84. New Democrats fought it, as did members of the Liberal

caucus. I recall committee hearings across this province. I recall the incredibly effective campaign by firefighters in opposition to Bill 84. As a result of that, firefighters were able to obtain

some modest concessions.

This double-hatting scenario is one that has certainly accelerated in terms of the frequency of confronting it and the difficulties it has posed since Bill 84.

Nobody in this Legislature, in any way, shape or form, would ever, in my view -- I haven't seen it in the 14 years I've been here, and I don't expect to see it in however many more years the folks

of Niagara Centre intend to have me represent them -- disparage any firefighter in this province, be that firefighter a full-time employee or be that firefighter a volunteer.

The reality is that the nature of volunteer firefighting has changed substantially. Municipalities are contracting -- those hybrid municipalities which have

full-time firefighting forces and volunteer forces as well.

Today, just before I got here, I saw the letter from the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada to Steve Pandur of a Welland volunteer fire company,

nominating that fire company for the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada Ontario Award for Firefighting Department of the Year, at which point it will then be in the national competition --

well deserved and, obviously, in that case, because of the because of the participation that volunteers and full-time firefighters have had in raising funds, notwithstanding this government's

squeegee bill. You should note that the squeegee bill shut them down last September in Welland when one local crank called the police and the police were obliged to tell firefighters to get off the

street, to put those boots back on and stop collecting money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada.

Volunteer fire companies have been organizing into unions and I support that. I support the right of volunteer firefighters to belong to unions, be it the IWA

or the Teamsters, or the union of their choice if it's not the IWA or Teamsters. They've become involved in collective bargaining processes. I support the right of people to join unions and I put

to you that unions are democratic institutions wherein the membership of those unions elect their leadership and draft and compose their constitutions and their bylaws.

I say it is not for this Legislature to tell the members of a union or a professional association, as from time to time it might be wont to call itself, how to

construct their constitution. It is for their membership to determine how those constitutions are to read.

Just as I respect the constitutions of the IWA or of the Teamsters, I respect the right of the professional firefighters' association of this province to draft

their constitution and to set standards and bylaws for their membership, knowing full well that if that membership wants to change that constitution, then that membership should and can. It's not

for me to tell workers in unions how to draft their bylaws, their standards and their constitutions.

Having said that, the issue of double-hatting has been of concern in a number of communities across this province. There has been some hyperbole attached to

the nature of conflict. I'm advised that in Hamilton there was an agreement negotiated around the issue of double-hatting. I'm advised that in Ottawa there was an agreement reached with the Ottawa

Transition Board. I'm also advised that the fire marshal has initiated a process of consultation where conflicts of interest around this issue -- and I'm not disputing that there are conflicts of

interest. There may well be. In fact, as you would be wont to say, Speaker, there is some evidence that would give rise to what might be considered some prima facie conflicts of interest. I

understand that.

The fire marshal has initiated a process whereby there can be negotiation around those conflicts. Is the prohibition, if there is one, against full-time

firefighters then functioning, in addition to their full-time jobs, in volunteer firefighting companies? Does it create for that individual full-time firefighter who has a legitimate, genuine

interest in serving his or her home community, a piece of small-town Ontario separate and apart from the larger municipality in which they work full-time, does it constitute an impediment to that

full-time firefighter serving his or her small-town community by virtue of participation in the volunteer fire services?

It's clear that's one of the many inferences that could be drawn. But having said that, the vast majority of volunteer firefighters in this province are not

full-time firefighters. I don't in any way, and it would be naive for anybody in this chamber to dispute the motivation of volunteer firefighters. I not only can take not quarrel with the

proposition that volunteer firefighters are motivated by an interest to serve their communities, but I expound that position as enthusiastically and forcefully as one could.

My goodness, volunteer firefighters like the ones I know down in Niagara are not just there serving their communities and their volunteer companies in fire

suppression and fire safety, but they're out there participating as first-line response teams to traffic accidents, boating accidents and medical crises -- there are no two ways about it. They're

also out there along with a whole lot of other folks raising money for muscular dystrophy, notwithstanding the stupid squeegee bill. They've done their best, notwithstanding being told from time to

time, as a result of this government, to get off the streets and stop collecting money for MD. They're out there in other fundraising activities, and they're as strong a group of supportive

community members as you could ever find.

The fundamental issue here is whether you believe in a trade union's right to write its own constitution. One of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society

is the right of trade unions not only to exist but to exist without government interference.

Mr Klees: What about the Charter of Rights?

Mr Kormos: I put to this member --

Mr Klees: What about giving people rights?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Kormos: -- that we should have some great concern --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'll not warn the members for Oak Ridges or Oxford again.

Mr Kormos: -- about a legislative agenda that so boldly would interfere with a trade union's right to write its own constitution.

At the end of the day, I don't believe this bill would serve anybody's interests, and let me explain why: I believe a negotiated resolution of what I

acknowledge as a conflict of interests is the one that can best serve the interests of all involved. It's trite to point out that if you put people into an all-or-nothing situation, there are

winners but at the same time there are losers.

I want to advocate for a far more progressive style of resolving this conflict. I don't always find myself in tune, onside or in harmony with the fire marshal;

he understands that. But in this instance I think the process initiated by the fire marshal is preferable: a process of negotiation; a process of trying to find solutions that best serve the

interests of volunteers and of full-time fire fighters; not this legislation but a process of negotiation, a process of value creation, if I may.

New Democrats can't support this legislation, and we won't. We will, however, continue to support volunteer firefighters. We will continue to call upon

municipalities across this province to adopt minimum staffing standards, and we will continue to call upon any government, be it this government or its successor, to ensure that municipalities have

the funding and the resources they need to set and maintain those full and minimum staffing standards.

In what I call hybrid communities, like where I come from, the volunteer services have historically -- and their histories are long -- played an integral role

in fire services. They continue to play that role. The dynamics of their relationship with the municipality have changed. Again, there are probably three groups of communities in this province:

there are communities that are primarily, if not fully, volunteer; there are communities that are hybrid, like most of the communities I represent; and there are communities like London which are

100% full-time firefighters. So this is a scenario where one size doesn't fit all.

The solution is in readdressing Bill 84. The solution is in returning to some of the arguments made by firefighters against Bill 84. The solution is ensuring

that all municipalities, big and small, have adequate firefighting services with appropriate levels of staffing, appropriate levels of resources. In other words, give the firefighters the tools and

the training they need because firefighters certainly want to do the training and are prepared to and will undertake it if given the opportunity, and, by God, they need the tools.

The solution is not to participate in the high-risk game of trying to play off one group of firefighters against another. New Democrats stand with the right of

union members, be they IWA members, be they Teamsters members, be they members of the professional firefighters' association, to write their own constitutions, to determine bylaws, to determine

standards for their membership. We stand with the Liberals in their opposition to this bill, and we call upon the author of this bill to understand that there are solutions, but they are not to be

found in this legislative agenda.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm very pleased to speak in support of Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act,

1997, in order to protect the employment of volunteer firefighters. I congratulate my colleague Mr Ted Arnott, the member for Waterloo-Wellington, for bringing this bill before the House.

It is indeed an honour to speak up for the true heroes in our communities. Volunteer fire service is the ultimate example of effort and dedication. Volunteer

firefighters answer the call every day and put their lives on hold while putting their life on the line. Some make the ultimate sacrifice.

There are more than 120,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada, a number that makes up 80% of the firefighters across this country. I had the pleasure of

attending the Dorset-Algonquin Highlands firefighters' pig roast two Saturdays ago. The pig roast was fantastic, but I also had the honour of presenting the chief, Clint MacKay, with a 35-year

plaque for his dedication to volunteering in the community. Such committed volunteerism has a long-standing tradition in our province. Volunteer firefighters are part of the more than 2.3 million

unsung heroes of all ages who volunteer in many different ways. Volunteers help keep our communities vibrant and healthy and make our province a much richer place to live.

The volunteer fire service is a proud community tradition that now finds itself under attack. The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association is seeking to

prevent its members from volunteering in community fire departments.

I quote from the Saturday, March 9, 2002, Lindsay Daily Post: "The city's fire chief is warning the level of public safety could be in jeopardy after two

volunteer firefighters resigned due to union pressure, and 19 others may not be far behind."

According to the firefighters' association, people who spend their free time fighting fires and responding to all manner of emergencies might not perform well

in their jobs when they return to work. They call their members who serve as volunteer firefighters "double-hatters." Well, all volunteer firefighters are double-hatters. They all have other jobs,

they all have other ways to earn a living, because they certainly couldn't live on the money they receive from their local fire departments. In my community, if a volunteer firefighter responds to

every call, he or she could earn up to $2,800 a year.

The training standards and regulations placed on today's volunteer firefighters have resulted in a six- to eight-month training period before the average

volunteer can be put on a fire truck. Professional firefighters who volunteer in their local communities are ready to go, right away, and the expertise that professional firefighters bring with

them is invaluable. Sharing it with volunteer firefighters is a huge benefit.

The Ontario Fire College is located in my beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. A former principal of the college, Mr Eric Rainey, has provided many, many

years of volunteer service for the Bracebridge fire department. His outstanding leadership is a fine example to professional firefighters everywhere around our province.

Our community fire departments need volunteers from many walks of life. Volunteers bring useful skills with them, no matter what their occupation. Expertise in

dealing with municipal water systems, construction, mechanical or medical matters all contribute valuable knowledge to emergency response. And we need volunteers who are local residents, able to

respond in a timely fashion and have detailed knowledge of the area.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that support from employers, large and small, as well as the self-employed, is essential to fire departments around this

province. These employers allow their workers to answer the call for help. They do not threaten them with job loss; they support the commitment to their communities. The member from Niagara Centre

seems more concerned with trade unions' constitutional rights than individual rights. Without the support of employers, volunteer fire departments simply could not exist.

Threatening professional firefighters with job loss for volunteering to fight fires on their own time, in their own communities, alongside their own friends

and neighbours, is like telling the good Samaritan to pass on by. It is clearly wrong. I call on members from both sides of this House to support the speedy and unhindered passage of Bill 30.

Hon John R. Baird (Associate Minister of Francophone Affairs): I'll speak in support of this legislation. We have a lot of great volunteer

firefighters in Nepean-Carleton and the former townships of Osgoode, Rideau and Goulbourn and in the constituency of my colleague from Lanark-Carleton and West Carleton. They provide an excellent

service to the people in my community. Many wear two or even three hats. That's why I'm very pleased to support this important piece of legislation brought forward by my good colleague from

Waterloo-Wellington.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Waterloo-Wellington has two minutes to reply.

Mr Arnott: Once again, I want to thank the volunteer firefighters who are with us in the gallery today. Thank you for your presence today and

thank you for the good work you do.

In the short time I have remaining, I wish to thank my colleagues who have participated in this debate: the member for Oak Ridges, the member for Oxford, the

member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the chief government whip, the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot and the member for Niagara Centre. Thank you very much for your presentations this

morning.

I would respond to my colleague the member for Brant. First of all, I want to express, I suppose, appreciation for his contribution, although I must say I

fundamentally disagree with his conclusion about this bill. I felt that his unfocused remarks added little to this debate, and I was disappointed in that. He tried to bring partisan politics into

this issue. I would reject the fact that there needs to be partisan politics in this issue. It's not an urban-versus-rural issue. It doesn't need to be painted that way.

When we suggest there aren't very many double-hatters, we attempt to diminish the scope of the problem. I would submit to you, sir, that if even one

double-hatter is intimidated and threatened to resign, his volunteer force is weakened. That is not an acceptable tactic. I will continue to speak against this tactic. It is not my view that this

needs to be a fight between volunteer firefighters and professional firefighters. What we're saying with this bill is that this tactic of threats and intimidation is unacceptable. That's the

principle of this bill. If you in fact vote against this bill, you're suggesting at best that you're prepared to turn a blind eye to this unacceptable tactic; at worst, you're condoning it. I would

ask you to reconsider your position and ask you to support this bill. I would ask all members of this House to support Bill 30.

ELECTRICITY CONTRACTS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government must conduct an immediate review of

the conduct of electricity retailers in the province; put an immediate stop to the practice of soliciting electricity contracts door-to-door or via the telephone; introduce a standard contract used

by all electricity retailers, forcing retailers to provide "apples to apples" price comparisons to protect consumers; and immediately begin a non-partisan public education campaign explaining what

consumers should look for, and look out for, when signing electricity contracts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has 10 minutes to make a

presentation.

Mr Brown: This resolution today is but a very simple one. It asks the Eves government to act on behalf of the people of Ontario. It asks the

Eves government to act now. It asks the Eves government to act decisively. It asks the Eves government to ban the practice of selling retail electricity contracts door-to-door or over the phone. It

asks that contracts be clearly comparable in form and it asks that people be allowed to make informed choices, free from pressure, misinformation or just plain confusion.

I think that is what the people of Ontario want. I do not think that is what they're getting. Consumers are particularly vulnerable to acts by certain

individuals and/or companies that cannot be effectively monitored by the government or by the regulator, the Ontario Energy Board. The Ontario Energy Board cannot possibly know what is being said

at the doorstep. It obviously cannot hear the pitch that is being made at kitchen tables across this province. It cannot know the validity of the information being provided. It cannot know what

slick spin is coming to consumers. The regulator plainly cannot know what each individual salesperson might be saying to my aunt, my mother, my brother, my children. It is not possible to know, and

these salespeople appear totally unsolicited. They appear at your doorstep to solve a problem you didn't know you had.

My leader, Liberal Dalton McGuinty, placed a bill before the Legislature last February to allow for the cancellation of contracts signed under questionable

circumstances. But I seek to go further. We have a huge market of consumers. Millions of Ontario consumers have not yet entered contracts. We must act to protect this market from questionable

practices.

My office in Heyden and my office in Elliot Lake have had a large number of calls complaining of the practices of salespeople. Many of these practices, while

questionable, may not be illegal, but they have certainly misrepresented the situation in this new market: the prices and the terms of the contract. The ability of Ontarians to make a logical,

informed choice on the doorstep is obviously questionable and the regulator cannot possibly be able to monitor what private conversations take place there -- unsolicited conversations, I might

add.

Let's step back for a minute and understand here what is really being sold. I would suggest that what is really being sold door to door, unsolicited, is not

energy or electricity. I would suggest that it is in reality insurance. It is not the energy of the wind being harnessed and being sold. It is not gravity in the form of falling water being

transformed into energy that's being sold. It is not combustion through the use of fossil fuels or biomass that's being sold. It is not the immense energy released from the splitting of atoms

that's being sold. It's not the energy that's being supplied through the sun by way of solar panels etc. What is being sold here is not the generation of electricity; it is the generation of

electricity coupled with an insurance component that seeks to guarantee a price. In essence, what is being sold is insurance. We have opened a vast new insurance market. I believe that a

competitive market is a good thing, but I think consumers need to understand what's really being sold here.

The opening of the retail market on May 1 has opened a market unimaginable just a short while ago. I think every member of this Legislature would know it has

caused a great deal of public concern over whether in fact they needed to sign a retail contract. Mr Speaker, you would know of course that they do not; you would know that consumers are free to

just move with the market price. They do not need to buy the insurance provided through a contract. But if they believe electricity prices in this province may increase radically, many consumers

would believe that the insurance provided through a contract is a good thing to purchase.

For example, we could have the Ontario Energy Board post on a Web site a chart showing comparable terms and prices. I believe that the Ontario Energy Board,

upon being asked by a consumer, could provide that chart by way of the mail. I believe electricity retailers should advertise through all the various places in the media, whether that be

television, radio, newspapers or flyers. They can use direct mail. I think there are all sorts of opportunities. I would suggest they can even open little shops in malls. They can do whatever they

want. But I think in this particular market that having someone appear on your doorstep, in some cases, we have been told, actually cutting up a person's hydro bill in front of them, is a practice

that we have no way of monitoring and no way of knowing what the pressure might be.

In my capacity as the critic for seniors, I know this particular group has some difficulty in some cases with this, because they clearly have been customers of

whichever particular retailer, in most cases a public utility, for many years, and they don't understand what might happen. I also bring to light that it's not just those who are uninformed who may

have problems. My friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Jean-Marc Lalonde, has had the experience of not having one contract forged; he's actually had two of these contracts forged. My friend

from Renfrew recounts a particular incident about his father. He says that because the person who came to him was from Hydro One, he thought by signing with that company he was making a good deal.

No one told him that he would be one of nearly 200,000 customers who signed up with Hydro One, only to have that entire book of business sold away on the eve of the market opening to Union Energy,

a wholly owned subsidiary of Epcor of Edmonton, Alberta. That's just another example of how Ontario consumers have been scammed and ripped off.

This is but a book of insurance. The question I'm really asking, when you boil it right down today, is, do you believe that this particular product, retail

electricity insurance, should be sold door-to-door, unsolicited, by people we cannot monitor, where there is no way to monitor them, to consumers who, in many cases, have no idea that they might

want to buy the product?

I think the government has done a very poor job of informing the public. I think the government has abrogated its responsibility. I think in the name of

consumer protection, I think it only makes sense to ban the door-to-door or telephone solicitation of these contracts.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in this debate. Quite frankly, we debated this type of resolution

about a week ago. The resolution is absolutely unnecessary and I believe the members opposite should know that. Not only has our government already put mechanisms in place to protect consumers, but

we're trying to enhance those protections. We're not getting help from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and his colleagues. If anything, they're standing in the way of consumer protection with

resolutions like the one we're dealing with today.

Electricity customers want this House to fix the shortcomings we've discovered in electricity retailing, not to shut the business down. The sooner the

honourable member and his party move to support Bill 58, the sooner Ontario electricity consumers can be assured they will be even better protected from dishonest retailers than they already

are.

As the member well knows, Bill 58, if passed by this House, will strengthen the Ontario Energy Board's powers against unfair marketing and retailing practices.

It contains strong prohibitions against false advertising. If it is passed, it will enact a new energy consumers' bill of rights that would allow the government to tell retailers what their

contracts should look like and what information they should contain. It would enhance cancellation rights by increasing the existing 10-day right to cancel to 30 days. Not only that, a contract

would only take effect after the customer reaffirmed it. Customers would also have to reaffirm contract renewals. The negative renewal option would no longer apply.

These are the kinds of protections people in Ontario told Minister Stockwell they wanted to see when he consulted around the province last month. He listened

to their concerns. Bill 58 is a response to them, as well as actions already taken by the energy board with respect to dealing with and penalizing retailers' actions previous to Bill 58.

Ending electricity retailing would be a step backward. We've had some growing pains. We've heard about unscrupulous retailers going door-to-door or marketing

over the phone. That happens with any product out there. There are already protections in place through the Consumer Protection Act and the Criminal Code if we're dealing with fraud or

misrepresentation. We're here to fix the problems that are out there. It doesn't mean we should prevent electricity customers from enjoying the benefits that come with electricity retailing, things

like the peace of mind that comes from locking in an energy price and knowing what it's going to be for the length of the contract, or the ability to contribute to environmental protection by

choosing green energy.

Close to a million Ontario electricity customers have chosen from among retailer offerings. They've decided to let retailers assume the risks of electricity

price fluctuations. Retailers have been selling natural gas door to door in Ontario since 1990 and hundreds of thousands of customers have benefited. Why would anyone want to take that opportunity

out of the electricity sector?

I'm somewhat surprised this resolution is coming from a Liberal. I might expect it from a New Democrat. They're opposed to choice and open markets. The

Liberals, on the other hand, have always claimed to support the notion of competition in order to bring private sector discipline to the electricity sector and put an end to spiralling debt.

Instead of trying to turn back the clock, instead of returning us to the days of the monopoly and of 94% increases, the members opposite should be helping the

government and customers by supporting choice. They should be promoting competition to fix the problems of the past and to safeguard our electricity future.

Our government is promoting competition by providing a strong regulatory framework and by educating customers so they can exercise choice. We've conducted an

extensive consumer education program aimed at developing a broader awareness of electricity restructuring and informing consumers about the options available to them. Information and educational

materials have been provided through brochures, fact sheets, utility bill inserts, a toll-free information line, the ministry Web site and radio, print and television advertising.

In my riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, I haven't heard anything of what the member is speaking about, through Barrie Hydro, which is a reputable operator, and

the same with Innisfil Hydro.

We on this side believe that informed consumers are empowered consumers. We will continue to see they have all the information they need to exercise their

right to choose. Education and regulation is how you strengthen consumer protection. You don't do it by shutting down a retail market and taking away choice.

Before I wrap up, I want to take a minute to remind members why the government has opened the electricity market. We did it because the old Ontario Hydro

monopoly was no longer working. It was suffering from mismanagement and waste, and by 1999 it had accumulated debt and other liabilities of $38 billion. That's $10,000 for each one of its customers

and more than $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this province. Something had to be done, and we have done that.

The Liberal resolution today would reverse a well-known former federal Liberal finance minister, Donald Macdonald, who supports the path we're taking and not

the path we're looking at now. I don't support the resolution.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I am pleased to stand and speak in support of Mr Brown's resolution. It's a wonderful initiative that

talks about protection of the public interest.

I heard the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford talk about choice. The problem is, neither the people selling at the door nor the people receiving know what

they're buying. They don't know what the choice is. It's nice to have a choice, but you have to have a premise from which that choice is provided.

I want to speak to the whole notion of soliciting electricity contracts. I have a number of individuals who have come to my office and I have dealt with their

particular examples of how electricity is being sold. Remember that the government is in charge of this whole deregulation issue, so they should have put protections in place before, not after.

They've included gas retailers -- the same thing -- in their fixing up. As the member from Barrie suggested, they've got to fix up the problem. They created the problem, and they didn't anticipate

and didn't put protections in there for the consumer.

I'll give you some examples. Dave is an 81-year-old senior. Direct Energy pressured him. They said to him, "All we want you to say is yes. You're going to have

to sign up with somebody pretty soon or you won't be able to get electricity." These are the things that were told to him.

Dave came to us and said, "I don't know what to do. I didn't want to sign this." We were able to deal with it, but if I gave you the whole story of talking to

both the salesperson and the Direct Energy account people, it was a nightmare.

Don didn't even sign a contract. The signature on the contract with his name is not his signature. So we've got fraud here.

Mr Tascona: Somebody call the police.

Ms Di Cocco: Oh, absolutely. It's out there. People are unsuspecting victims because this government puts no protection for the consumers of

electricity in this province. You open up the market and everybody helps themselves.

Mr Tascona: What are the police for? Call the police.

Ms Di Cocco: They got Stephanie's daughter, who is mentally challenged, to sign a contract at the door. The mom wasn't there for a few

minutes. She came back, and sure enough her daughter had signed a contract.

The same thing with Jacky, 70 years old, who states he became scared at the door. He was actually frightened. Again, the same tactic: "If you don't sign up,

you're not going to have any electricity."

Peter, 80 years old -- again, it seems they have the same thing. He was frightened of what was happening, because he said his electricity was going to be cut

off.

These are some. I have many more, but I don't have the time to list them all. These are actual cases, and the government has a responsibility to protect their

interests. That's why we have to support this resolution. This kind of solicitation at the door has to stop.

When it comes to the public interest, the Harris-Ernie Eves government has shown by its action that it has forgotten what is meant by "the public interest."

They've attempted this privatization coup that has failed and is a mess because of a court order. And all the debacle has been created over the last few weeks because we were able to peek under the

cloak of secrecy that was thrown over the successor Ontario Hydro companies. That cloak of secrecy was wrapped around the successor Ontario Hydro companies by the Harris-Eves duo because they

removed the successor Ontario Hydro companies from public scrutiny.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Very convenient.

Ms Di Cocco: And conveniently so. Is that the public interest? Is the public interest being protected? I don't think so. The public interest

is not protected from the soliciting and the selling of electricity, nor was it being protected when the successor companies were divided up.

Over the last few days we've heard all this rhetoric, "Oh, my, we've got to fix this mess; it's such a problem." It couldn't have been stated better -- this is

from the Globe and Mail -- and I loved Brian Milner's analogy: "But as Mr Eves and his energy minister, Chris Stockwell, fume in outrage, we are once again reminded (it happens a lot) of Claude

Rains in Casablanca" -- people who are my age understand that -- "as he is about to shut down Rick's Café for illicit gambling. `I'm shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in

here,' he declares just as a croupier hands him his winnings." The fact is that the government knew back in 1999 what has been going on with Hydro One and the rest of the successor companies.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I've listened with awe to some of the statements being made here today. I heard about natural gas being

sold on the streets since 1990, and in fact there is nothing erroneous about that statement. It has been sold on the streets since 1990. But in spite of that, we saw the problems of selling retail

natural gas on the streets, we saw the gas spikes of a few years ago, and tenants, particularly in the city of Toronto and in the major cities of this province, are paying a huge price for that

deregulation, for that sale at the door, for the natural gas spikes that have taken place.

This government has done nothing to help them in their time of trouble, and I expect they will do nothing to help the electrical consumer at the same time.

To go just a little bit further on the natural gas spikes and how they're playing out every day at the tenant review tribunal in Toronto, every day there are

landlords going before that tribunal and they're saying that they signed contracts for energy, for natural gas in their apartments, which are way and above what one can buy natural gas for, or that

they didn't buy a contract. They can win both ways here, you see. They didn't buy the contract, and they're relying on the spike from a couple of years ago as their energy cost, and they are being

rewarded for their incompetence. They're being rewarded by this government with above-guideline increases. Every tenant in almost every apartment building in Toronto where the landlord has done it

has been gouged with additional increases for costs that are no longer borne. It's a clear example of what happens when you just allow an unfettered, unregulated market to go out and sell these

kinds of things.

I ask any of you to go and ask a tenant with an above-guideline increase how he or she got that. I guarantee you, nine times out of 10 it's for gas costs for

an unregulated market, which you have allowed to proceed and which you have no interest whatsoever in protecting them from. Now I see here that you have no interest, again, in protecting consumers

who are being gouged by similar types of people at the door.

At least with natural gas, people have a choice. If you choose not to heat your home with natural gas, you can reconvert back to oil, or you can put in

electric space heaters or you can put in insulation or you can do a number of things to lower your costs. But how do people have a choice with electricity, other than setting up a generator, which

is pretty difficult, in your house, apartment or condominium? Other than going down to the Honda dealership, buying a generator, plugging into that and having the constant noise and fumes of

gasoline burning, how else do you get by without electricity? How do you turn on your television and lights? How does your refrigerator work? How do any of the modern conveniences that we all need

every day work?

People have a reliance on electricity, which goes so far as to make them absolutely afraid. They are afraid of losing their electrical service and they are

afraid, if the costs skyrocket beyond their ability to pay, that they will no longer be able to use their televisions, their computers or any of the other electrical instruments or gadgets in their

houses that they rely upon every day, some of them even to the point of health and public safety. Some of them are even machines that keep people alive. They are afraid.

It is with knowing this fear that the energy retailers are going to the door. "Tie in with us now. We can make sure that you keep your electricity. We will

squeeze every last cent out of you but we will make sure that you will keep your electricity." The reality is that people are afraid. People don't know what to do. They have never had to negotiate

for electricity before. They are simply not informed. People have come to my office by the dozens, asking, "What does it cost for a kilowatt hour? How much do I pay for electricity? How much more

is this contract I've just signed? Have I been duped? I didn't know what I was doing." They are coming by the dozens and dozens. Primarily these people who are being duped are older, have less

education, are afraid. They are just not with it. They can go to the supermarket and they can compare at the Dominion or at Sobeys the cost of a head of lettuce. They will know that one is 79 cents

and one is 69 cents and at which place they're likely to buy it. They know that they can shop in two stores and look at the commodities which they understand. But they don't understand kilowatts,

megawatts or ohms. They have never had to do this before. With the greatest of respect, to simply pounce and deregulate the market without the kind of training whereby people would know to look for

something that's going to cost around 3 cents or 4 cents is leaving these guys unfettered. It's like turning wolves on to a pack of sheep. They are just there and they are going to take complete

advantage whenever they can.

I have sat here for the last five weeks, I have to tell you, in complete awe of what has happened in this province and what is in this Legislature. In

December, when the former Premier got up to leave, he left one parting shot. As if he hadn't done enough to the province already, he left with one parting shot, and that parting shot was this

electricity bill about selling Hydro One. I think the people opposite must rue that day. They must have wondered what was happening to them at a time when they hoping for renewal, new leadership

and a new direction. What did they get? They got the parting shot from the outgoing Premier, who has saddled you with one of the worst political problems that I have ever in my life witnessed,

either inside or outside the House, either in city hall or on the streets. I have never seen the machinations that have gone on here in this Legislature for the last five weeks.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): They're doing a good job in Ottawa too.

Mr Prue: I don't know. I'm watching Ottawa too. They're doing a good job, but not as good as you guys in terms of being skewered on your own

petard. I want to tell you, I have never seen that.

I don't know whether to thank the past Premier or not. It's all too easy to sit here on the opposition side and chortle at what he has done to you. He did so

much to so many people -- to nurses, to doctors, to teachers, to welfare mothers, to everyone else -- but this is the ultimate coup. He's actually done it to his own people. He's set you on a road

for which I think you have no outcome. You have here an enormous problem on all levels of electricity, whether it's the door-to-door sales, OPG or selling Hydro One -- just all of it.

The bill we have here today is a review of the retailers. We have all read the newspaper accounts. I would think every single member opposite is just like me

and has had people come in, disturbed and upset about the retailers at their door. You must have seen one --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Not one.

Mr Prue: Not one. There you go. You must be lucky. You must have no old and infirm people. You must have no door-to-door retailers who are

ripping them off. Lucky for you. I wish I was that lucky, and I wish my community was that lucky.

You've all seen the newspapers and you've all read about the aggressive tactics. We in the New Democratic Party had to laugh a little because for a couple of

weeks there, as Howard Hampton was going around the province warning about this kind of situation, we even had the retailers -- who were very smart. They adopted a door-to-door sales policy showing

Howard Hampton saying, "Your prices are going to go up. You need to sign here. You need to trust Howard Hampton. Please sign here on the line because if you don't, your prices are going to go up."

They had a bit of a mini sales boom over all of that. I have to tell you that these guys have been to my door many times. They keep coming, company after company, trying to sell the product.

Mr Wettlaufer: If they were using scare tactics, what does that say about Howard?

Mr Prue: It's always the same silly story: "You have to do this to protect yourself."

Interjection.

Mr Prue: At least we have a leader who's here in the House often. I wish we could say the same about your party.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I think he's been here as much as yours.

Mr Prue: I don't think so. Anyway, I still think he's better than your former one. I have to give you that. He's still better than your former

one.

Mr Hardeman: Stick with the facts.

Mr Prue: I'm sticking with the facts. They've been at my door and they're always there with the same silly story. They're always trying to

prey upon people's fears. I can laugh at them, but I want to tell you that many people do not. Many people have succumbed. There are more that a million people who have succumbed.

The member opposite from Bradford-Simcoe did say that some of this has already been addressed, and that's true. I have to think that the member who is

presenting the bill today had written this prior to the government bill. What he is saying about ending the practice, that's OK. What he's saying about the standard contract, that's OK. What he's

saying about non-partisan education, I think that's absolutely essential and we can agree with that.

We are going to support his bill, but the bill doesn't go near far enough to the gravity of the situation that is out there. The failure of this particular

bill here today is that it does not give redress to the more than one million people who have signed contracts. It does not allow them to get out of those contracts, even though many of them, with

the hindsight of time, have discovered that the signing of the contract was not in their best financial interest, even though with the hindsight of time they know it is not going to offer the

panacea they thought it was, even though with the hindsight of time they wish they had not or maybe wish they had signed with some other retailer who would have given them a better deal.

There are more than a million people out there who signed these contracts and who are now stuck with them and who now in the next few weeks are going to come

out and find their first bill on their doorstep. They are going to see, very sadly, that the costs of their electricity vis-à-vis what they were paying at this time last year have gone up and

have gone up significantly. In spite of the brave words here and in spite of the markets showing that costs have remained fairly steady up until this point because we haven't had any major heat

problems this summer, they're going to see that they have in fact paid too much.

There are a million people out there who are crying out. There are a million people out there who wish they would have the opportunity to renegotiate. This

bill does not allow for that. They have found out they're paying too much. They have found out they were pressured. They are finding out that maybe this wasn't a good deal after all.

That is a failure of the bill because it does not deal with them. I know it's very difficult to do retroactive bills. It's very difficult to change things that

have already been, but from time to time governments do make that decision when they feel something has been done wrongly. They can make amends for legislation which had not foreseen this.

When the member opposite spoke, he said this was to redress some of the things that could not have been seen. Surely this could have been seen. Simply

following what was happening with deregulated natural gas would have shown you what would have happened with electricity, and it would happen not just in the same way, but even worse, because

electricity is a commodity for which there are no substitutes. The government should have foreseen.

The problem with this bill is that it's failing to call for a review of the system. It is simply saying, "Here we are. We're out there selling the electrical

market. We're out there allowing door-to-door salesmen, and we don't disagree that these door-to-door salesmen should be allowed to do it." In our party, we think this is fundamentally wrong. We

have said this from the beginning. We do not believe in the privatization either in how hydro is produced or how it is sold or the transmission lines. We believe it is a public commodity.

I served on a Hydro board for some five years myself, and in all the time I served on that board and in all the time I was a local councillor and was connected

with Hydro in the community, we never had the kinds of problems we are seeing here today with consumers. We never saw the consumers ripped off. We never had them angry about the prices. We never

had them angry about how they were being talked to at the door. We never had them worried about what was going to happen with Hydro One. We never had them worried about OPG. We never had them

worried about anything. They were satisfied with the commodity that was being delivered. Now when we're in the competitive market, we have the whole problem of caveat emptor. I'm saying to the

people, "When those guys come to your door, notwithstanding this bill, simply tell them no."

Mr Sampson: I'm pleased to stand and say a few words on this particular resolution. It's not a bill; it's a resolution -- I draw that to the

attention of the member from the NDP caucus.

Mr Prue: A slip of the tongue.

Mr Sampson: That's right.

Actually, I think there are some valid points the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has raised in this resolution, the majority of which, by the way, I believe are

captured by Bill 58, which was tabled by --

Interjection.

Mr Sampson: I'm just drawing to your --

Mr Brown: The resolution was first.

Mr Sampson: Sure -- which the Minister of Energy has tabled and may or may not be before this House today or this evening. It's actually in

the form of a bill which will have attendant regulations, which I think will drive some of the things that you were looking for in your resolution.

I'm also pleased to speak to this very briefly because I think there are very few people in this province who haven't at one time had to answer their door or

their phone to somebody who was marketing some product or other. In fact, it happened to me just last week, believe it or not. By the way, much to the annoyance of just about everybody who's

listening, it usually happens at the time you're either having dinner or you're about to head out to something or you're about to go and do something you have been planning to do. Sure enough, the

phone or the doorbell rings. The doorbell rang at our place. It was our Sunday dinner time. We try to have dinner together as a family. I go to the door, and it's somebody who is marketing

long-distance telephone contracts. I said, "Hello." The first comment out of their mouth was, "I need to see your long-distance phone bill." It wasn't, "Hello. How are you doing?" It was, "I need

to see your long-distance phone bill." You know what? I'm not too sure I could even produce my long-distance phone bill on that kind of notice. I'm not even too sure where it sits in the house any

more. It's under a stack of papers somewhere, no doubt. Hopefully, it's a paid bill as opposed to an unpaid bill.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): Your reputation precedes you.

Mr Sampson: Thank you, Minister. I really appreciate that comment from the Chair of Management Board.

These types of marketing trends, these behaviours, have been going on for some time. To somehow lay this at the feet of electricity reform is unfair, to be

mild about that comment. In fact, I dare say the members who are standing and speaking to this resolution who sit in this House on a regular day do a little bit of door-to-door canvassing

themselves every once in a while, whether it's at election time during writ period -- and some of my colleagues actually do that between writs.

I think what you're trying to get at, I say to the member opposite, is that you're hoping to have some code of behaviour established so that those who don't

want to answer the door or want to have time to consider the options that are being given to them at the door are given that option. I think a code of behaviour, a standard of behaviour, is well in

order, not just for electrical marketers but for those who are selling life insurance, long-distance telephone contracts, you name it, door to door; God forbid, maybe even politicians who are

selling themselves door to door. Well, maybe not.

But I'm worried that the member's resolution is taking that one step further, which is going to start to erode some of the benefits, I should say, of

door-to-door marketing, any marketing.

I will finish by saying that strangely enough this door-to-door salesperson who came to my door trying to sell me a long-distance contract actually got me

thinking about my long-distance contract. I started to pay attention to the volumes of ads that are on the airwaves, on the TV and in the papers these days, and I have started to take a very

aggressive look at whether or not indeed I'm paying too much for my long-distance bill. A little bit of research proves that indeed I was. So as a result of competition, I may be able to save

myself a few pennies, for which, on behalf of the other members of my family, I would say thank you very much, because that allows us to spend that money elsewhere or perhaps not spend it elsewhere

and put it in the bank, which is another good thing to be doing with surplus cash these days.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They're not paying any interest at all.

Mr Sampson: We can talk about the interest, if you will, later. But I say to my friends in the House, yes, I think there's some need for some

regulation and some monitoring of anybody who is selling anything door to door, widgets or gigawatts of power. The bill we have before the House on electrical reform does deal with that as it

relates to electrical salespersons, in fact probably takes that further step that is available to anybody now to deal with long-distance telephone marketers at their house.

I'm worried, though, that we will start to table resolutions and pass resolutions here in this House that will start to curtail competition, because in the

absence of competition we're going to get a monopoly environment in electrical business and a monopoly environment in any retail business that never proves to be beneficial to the taxpayer and the

consumer. We have to be careful not to take that further step, and for that reason I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to support the resolution that's standing in the member's name. But I do want

to encourage him to join with me and support the bills before the House that actually take a lot of what he has in his resolution and turn it into effective legislation and regulation to deal with

those who are around the streets of this province perhaps being a bit too aggressive in plying their trade in the electrical sales business.

I will now sit down and pass the floor to the opposition.

Mr Bradley: I'm going to speak in favour of this resolution. If there's one problem that is really coming to prominence in communities across

Ontario, including St Catharines and the Niagara region, it is people who are trying to scam consumers in this province over the issue of electrical power.

The resolution calls for the Ontario government to conduct an immediate review of the conduct of electricity retailers in this province. I can't think of

anybody who would not want to see this resolution passed.

Some time ago Dalton McGuinty advanced a program which I thought was very useful in protecting consumers. It said the following: that they should direct the

OEB, the Ontario Energy Board, to aggressively investigate complaints about unfair electricity contracts and cancel contracts signed as a result of unfair sales pitches, find and suspend the

licences of electricity retailers using unfair practices, place a moratorium on all further electricity retailing until consumers are given an accurate representation of what they now pay for

electricity so they can make clear, apples-to-apples comparisons of the prices being offered by retailers. The OEB has drafted a standard contract to be used by all electricity retailers that

eliminates the fine print and spells out the total cost. That's what we need while that moratorium is in place. And direct the OEB to launch an effective, non-partisan public education campaign

that tells consumers what to look for and be careful of when signing electricity contracts. Of course, the government's inaction on this front is particularly alarming, given the fact that its own

electricity retailing company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hydro One, has been operating under the misleading name of Ontario Hydro Energy and has been engaging in these questionable

practices.

Seniors are being told their hydro will be disconnected if they don't sign the contract being presented to them. There have actually been forgeries of

signatures taking place and misrepresentations by the company involved. Electricity retailers are engaging in that kind of forgery, misleading vulnerable people, lying about the nature of the

contracts being signed and, in the vernacular, ripping off the consumers of the province.

Here's what I think consumers should know -- and this information should be available to them: does the retailer have a licence from the Ontario Energy Board;

what is the price per kilowatt hour of the electricity being offered, and how does it compare with the offerings of other retailers; is a fixed price subject to change in the future; how long is

the contract, and can it be cancelled or changed; are there penalties involved in cancelling or changing; and can you purchase green or renewable power with the contract? Of course, the advice is

do not show retailers your existing electricity bills until you have agreed to sign a contract with the company. If you choose to sign with a retailer, you have to ask, as well, is the power supply

guaranteed?

This government, for months and months, simply closed its eyes to this particular problem while we in the opposition raised these issues. At my constituency

office I've heard from a number of consumers who are bewildered, frankly, with the tactics that are being used by individuals who are representing electricity retailers.

If there's one area where we have a responsibility as elected representatives, it is to protect consumers, protect the public we represent from this kind of

fraudulent, misleading activity that can cost them in the long run. I feel particularly sorry for people who are perhaps in bad health, the extremely elderly and so on, who are being badgered by

these electricity retailers to sign contracts that would be unwise for them to sign.

I am very supportive of this resolution. I hope that all members of the House will vote for it. It makes good common sense, and in the long run it will help

protect electricity consumers in Ontario.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to have a few minutes to join in the debate on Mr Brown's resolution.

Since May 1, we've had the opening of the electricity market, and its generally gone pretty smoothly. Since the market opened we've seen the price of

electricity go from the regulated 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour to pretty much averaging around 3 cents per kilowatt hour for the whole month of May. That's been good news; the price is down. It's a

30% drop in the price of electricity since the market opened. I think we can all be very pleased with that.

But of course with a competitive market, as the summer heats up, there is the risk that prices will go up as demand goes up, and if one of the large generating

plants has problems or goes off-line, there's certainly a possibility that prices would go up. That's why there's a role to be played by retailers who are selling fixed-price contracts for those

people that want to take the risk out of the market. Very much like you make a decision when you go to the bank for a mortgage as to whether you borrow money at prime plus one or two -- or whatever

the banks are lending at -- or whether you decide you don't want to take that risk and you want to lock in at a fixed price for five years, retailers allow the electricity customers to do just

that.

But I'd like to point out that many of the concerns expressed in this resolution, the ideas such as "introduce a standard contract used by all electricity

retailers, forcing retailers to provide `apples to apples' price comparisons to protect consumers," are covered in Bill 58, which was just introduced last week in the Legislature. If Bill 58 is

passed by this Legislature, consumer protection measures would be even tougher. The bill would enact a new energy consumers' bill of rights which would place new requirements on gas and electricity

retailers dealing with consumers, including giving government the authority to prescribe the content presentation of contracts, to ensure that important information is presented clearly and

factually to the consumer, very much like what Mr Brown is asking for. It prohibits other unfair practices. It prohibits false advertising. The bill would provide for the Ontario Energy Board to

have new enforcement powers, such as enhanced powers through order compliance and the power to order administrative penalties for these new offences.

The bill also enhances a consumer's cancellation rights -- I think this is very important -- after signing a contract. The existing 10-day right to cancel

would be replaced with a 30-day right to cancel. The contract would only be effective if the customer reaffirmed it. The negative renewal option would no longer be an option. The customer has to

renew it.

Bill 58 is addressing many of these concerns, and if it's approved by this House, the consumers would be further protected.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I'm pleased to join the discussion about my colleague Mike Brown's private member's resolution. Let me

begin by saying that I will be supporting the resolution, as I support any meaningful initiative that strengthens consumer protection and strengthens the government's ability to review the conduct

of electricity retailers in the province.

All of us know and have stories about retail scam, fraud, call it what you will. One of our members has had his name forged twice, and the matter is under

criminal investigation. Hundreds of contracts have been signed in my community by people over the course of the last two years, and I must say, it's unfortunate that we have not had the resources

available to assist people in these decisions leading up until now.

The government has, in my view, a relatively weak bill before this House that does not have, in the opinion of the official opposition, Dalton McGuinty, the

kind of teeth or commitments needed to protect consumers from the types of unscrupulous practices that have been going on. I should say that, while these practices are offensive by their nature --

one cannot cast aspersions on all retailers. But there are significant enough examples, particularly in the rural, eastern and northern parts of the province, that the resolution that Mr Brown has

put before us today merits our serious attention and concern. Moreover, it ought to have been done by the government probably a year or two ago. Many of these contracts are signed and they are a

fait accompli. Therefore, a review of these retailers and their practices up until now is logical, regardless of what you think of the bill introduced to this House this week.

The whole issue of hydro privatization, the whole question around this complex matter, has been the focus of much debate in the Legislature this month and

frankly is the focus of considerable debate in communities across the province. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have laid out the only clear, consistent alternative to the Conservative

package. We oppose the privatization of Hydro One. We support competition in the generation of hydro. We do believe and support initiatives that will see strengthened consumer protection.

It's interesting. Oftentimes when we ask questions about these contracts, we're told, "Have them call the OEB," as we heard the Minister of Energy say the

other day. Well, just try to get through to the OEB. Try to get a human being to take a phone call, let alone to do an investigation on a case-by-case basis. On the limited number of concerns that

have been raised by various members of our caucus, one can only conclude there are tens of thousands of people out there who could benefit from the provisions outlined in Mr Brown's resolution. It

affects seniors mostly. In my riding I get called all the time by senior citizens saying, "What do you advise we do?" I tell them what I think they should do, and that is, don't sign something

you're not comfortable with, because once you're signed on, that's it.

I support this resolution. I hope the House will as well. It's appropriate and timely.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin has two minutes to reply.

Mr Brown: I want to express my appreciation to the members for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Sarnia-Lambton, Beaches-East York, Mississauga Centre,

St Catharines, Parry Sound-Muskoka and Windsor-St Clair for providing advice on this resolution.

I say to the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, this motion has nothing to do with the retailing of electricity. I support a retail market in electricity.

However, I do not think it is appropriate to have door-to-door sales or telephone solicitation of that. So don't confuse the two issues.

What this resolution is asking, at least in that particular section, is, do you think the people of Ontario want a door-to-door salesman appearing at

suppertime, breakfast time, lunchtime or when you're on your way to the shower? Do you want some person coming to your door to sell a product you didn't know you needed to buy, other than through

what you were already doing? Is that what it was about? Do you believe that you and Ontarians want people to phone at 5 or 6 o'clock, just as you're sitting down to supper, and getting you up from

your dinner?

If you are in favour of those kinds of intrusive practices, vote against this resolution. If you think the public would be better served by rational discussion

of how to deal with this matter, vote for it.

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

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'EMPLOI

DES POMPIERS VOLONTAIRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 47. Mr Arnott has moved second reading of Bill 30. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

There will be a five-minute bell and we will delay that bell until after we have considered the next resolution.

ELECTRICITY CONTRACTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll now deal with ballot item number 48. Mr Brown has moved the resolution. Is it the pleasure of the

House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'EMPLOI

DES POMPIERS VOLONTAIRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 47. Mr Arnott has moved second reading of Bill 30. All those in

favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Boyer, Claudette

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Conway, Sean G.

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Patten, Richard

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Turnbull, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Kormos, Peter

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, Al

Mushinski, Marilyn

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32; the nays are 28.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'd like you to be here for the next vote.

I also want to address to the gallery that there are absolutely no demonstrations from the gallery. In spite of how we act down here, we don't allow it from

you.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be referred to committee?

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I would request that the bill be sent to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Acting Speaker: Those in favour of the bill being referred to the justice and social policy committee will please rise.

Those opposed will please rise.

A majority is in favour of the bill being referred to the justice and social policy committee.

ELECTRICITY CONTRACTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item 48, private member's resolution 1, standing in the name of Mr

Brown.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. There will be 30 seconds for those seeking entrance or egress.

We will now deal with ballot item 48.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Duncan, Dwight

Hodgson, Chris

Kormos, Peter

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, Al

McMeekin, Ted

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

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

Nays

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Clement, Tony

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Maves, Bart

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 31; the nays are 24.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution carried.

This being the completion of private members' business, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I want to make the House aware today of the leadership of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board in

their undertaking to attempt to help the Eves government understand how its grave underfunding has affected students in the Ottawa area.

The new Premier and the new Deputy Premier pretend they listen and make small overtures to pretend they are fixing problems left by Mike Harris. This

particular board has put the government on notice. They will not jeopardize their children's education. This board told the government last year that the funding formula was flawed. Here we go

again. To meet the needs of students, the board would have to enter into deficit financing, except that this time there are no reserves to use.

You see, following the minister's directive last year, in implementing a budget they had to use all their reserve funds of $20 million. This board is not being

unreasonable or fiscally irresponsible. They told the new minister the matter is urgent and asked her to appoint a qualified investigator to examine the financial condition of the board

immediately.

They can't wait until November. The children can't wait until November. By September, the board won't be able to pay their bills. In the words of the chair of

the board, "The time has come to make students a priority." I'm asking the minister to show that students are a priority for her and grant an additional $32.5 million in emergency funding to this

school board. I'm asking her to appoint the investigator the board has asked for, so that she will finally understand the real effects her government cuts are having on our school children in the

Ottawa area.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Regions and communities across this province have been enduring and suffering serious and dramatic physician

shortages. Niagara region and its communities are among the hardest hit. The shortage of physicians has dramatically worsened in the seven years since the Tories have been in power here at Queen's

Park.

A couple of weeks ago I met with Aggie Emerson and Nancy Dmytrow Bilboe, members of the Welland medical recruitment committee. They explained to me the efforts

that are being undertaken on behalf of the residents of the community of Welland, which are similar to efforts on behalf of residents in other communities in Niagara. They detailed for me some of

the incredible bureaucratic bungling, hurdles and red tape this government persists in maintaining for doctors who do want to come here from other jurisdictions to practise medicine.

This government is directly responsible for the worsening doctor shortage. I've written to the Minister of Health, Tony Clement. I've asked him to please meet

with members of the Welland medical recruitment committee. Let them submit to Mr Clement, the Minister of Health, detailed explanations and examples of the types of hurdles that exist that prohibit

doctors who want to from coming to Ontario, and they've got real-life examples as illustrations. They're prepared to work with the Minister of Health to help solve the problem; the Minister of

Health persists in maintaining and worsening the problem.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to honour all the men and women who fought for our freedom 58 years ago today. The beginning of the

end of the war in Europe started on a blustery day on the coast of Normandy, where thousands of British, Canadian and American troops stormed ashore in the early morning hours of June 6, 1944.

Fighting their way off the beaches amid a hail of bullets, they managed to hold a beachhead, despite desperate German attempts to dislodge them. In less than one year the Second World War would be

over.

Several Georgina residents took

part in the invasion, and their sacrifices, along with those who served in Canada's armed forces, were recognized on Saturday

and Sunday with the annual candlelight tribute at Briar Hill Cemetery in Sutton in my riding of York North.

Sam Doggart, veteran of the bloody fighting in Europe, spearheaded the campaign. The Georgina Guides, Scouts and Cadets mark the graves of servicemen and women

in the cemetery with a Canadian flag. Later, a lighted candle is placed on each grave, burning throughout the night and into the next day, Sunday.

Mr Doggart has extended his campaign this year to include Fenelon Falls, Aurora, Newmarket and Vaughan. Local church groups have also been given flags and

candles to place on the graves of veterans in their church cemeteries.

This program not only pays tribute to the sacrifices of Canada's fallen soldiers, but also instills in the young people taking part "the traditions of

sacrifice made to keep freedom alive."

CANCER SCREENING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): More than three years have now passed since an expert panel from Cancer Care Ontario, funded by the

Ministry of Health, presented its report on screening for colorectal cancer. The expert panel recommended that a screening program be put in place for individuals over 50. That recommendation was

supported by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Ontario Association of Gastroenterology and the Ontario Association of Pathologists. Yet three years

later there is still no screening program in place and no one is saying why. Why is the saving of a life not worth the investment in a $20 test?

Earlier this week the Ontario Association of Radiologists released a study on waiting times for diagnostic tests. It was shocking to see that in 75% of the

hospitals surveyed, people have to wait more than two weeks for a barium enema fluoroscopy, a test that is used to diagnose suspected colorectal cancer. In 25% of those hospitals, people are

waiting eight to 10 weeks to find out if they have cancer and should start treatments.

Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cancer killer for both men and women in Ontario, and Ontario has one of the highest rates of colorectal cancer in the

world. More than 6,000 Ontarians are diagnosed with colorectal cancer every year, and every year more than 2,000 Ontarians die from it. It doesn't need to be happening. The probability of curing

colorectal cancer is 90% when it is caught early. It is absolutely essential that the government act now to save lives. They should implement the screening program recommended by Cancer Care

Ontario three years ago, and they should ensure people don't have to wait weeks to get the tests that will determine whether they need treatment.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On behalf of my constituents in Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, it is my honour today to

mark the 58th anniversary of D-Day. All in all, Canada contributed a fifth of the fighting troops assaulting the German defences that day. The ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and the bombers and

fighters of the Royal Canadian Air Force were in the forefront of the forces guarding the invasion troops and softening up the German defences.

I want to pay special tribute to the three platoons of our own Lorne Scots regiment who went ashore and made Brampton and Canada proud that day. In 1944 Canada

carried its weight among the international community, unlike today.

I was pleased to see that the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced federal funding of $1 million to the Juno Beach Centre Association. This will assist in

the establishment of the Juno Beach Centre in Normandy, France. The centre should be ready by next year. I say, it's about time. There isn't a Canadian memorial that marks these achievements

anywhere. Sometimes it seems to me that the only part of military history the federal government has bothered to preserve is those 40-year-old flying death traps they call Sea King helicopters.

Canadians and free people everywhere owe our veterans more than can be repaid. I speak for everyone in Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale when I thank and

remember those brave soldiers, sailors and airmen.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The report of the select committee on alternative fuels provides an excellent road map for the government

of Ontario to drastically reduce our dependency on non-renewable, polluting fossil fuels and replace them with clean, renewable energy sources.

Unfortunately, to implement the far-reaching recommendations, the Eves government would have to completely reverse its energy and environment policies and

bring them into the 21st century. Evidence of this is found in the shocking and unbelievable answers that Environment Minister Chris Stockwell gave to my question regarding the conversion of dirty,

pollution-laden, coal-fired electric generating stations operated by Ontario Power Generation, of which his government is supposed to have complete control, to natural gas.

When asked to implement the recommendations of the alternative fuels committee report, the minister, in full rant mode, looking to his own members and the

press gallery for approval, replied that "the only way he wants to get up to number one is to close down all our infrastructure, close down all our plants, close down all our manufacturing and lay

everybody off and put them on welfare."

If anyone believes that the minister and the Eves government have any stomach for implementing the progressive, imaginative, comprehensive and far-reaching

recommendations of the alternative fuels committee report, he would be dreaming in Technicolor.

This government has made enormous, damaging cuts to the Ministry of the Environment, allows the dirtiest gas in Canada to be sold in Ontario, looks the other

way while polluting industries belch out pollutants and has abandoned public transit and refused to promote energy conservation.

GOLDEN JUBILEE OF

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): As a proud Canadian of British origin, I am pleased to rise today in order to mark the Queen's

Golden Jubilee. Only four previous monarchs have achieved this milestone.

The past 50 years have marked vast change, but throughout that time there has been one constant: the dignity, grace and leadership of Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth II.

It was an ordinary Wednesday in 1952 when Princess Elizabeth, who was in Kenya at the time, ascended to the throne on the death of her father, King George VI.

Following the funeral of King George VI and the 16-week period of court mourning, there was opportunity for celebration the following year with the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in Westminster

Abbey on June 2, 1953. I remember that day well.

From the earliest days of her reign, the Queen took up her new role with energetic commitment. Taking up her duties as head of the Commonwealth in earnest, the

Queen embarked on a series of overseas visits, including Canada. As head of the diverse nations of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth has taught us many lessons about the importance of respecting

the diversity within our own population here in Canada. Since those early days 50 years ago, the Queen has travelled the world and paid many visits to Canada.

On behalf of all members of this House, I extend our very best wishes to the Queen on the occasion of her Golden Jubilee. God save the Queen.

LEGAL AID

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I want to speak to the legal aid crisis that Ontario is currently going through. The failure to increase legal

aid tariffs over the past 15 years has meant that many communities across this province do not have counsel providing legal aid work, even though demand is increasing across the province.

The people who suffer are all of those single moms, kids, Ontarians who need access to justice, particularly on family law matters, and they're not getting it.

At the same time, this failure to increase legal aid tariffs further disadvantages low-income Ontarians.

The Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, stated recently, "Providing legal aid to low-income Canadians is an essential public service.... The

well-being of our justice system ... and the public's confidence in it ... depend on it. If legal aid fails, justice fails."

Yet in Ottawa, Brantford, Owen Sound, Kingston, London, Sault Ste Marie, Toronto, Brockville, Hamilton, Peterborough, St Catharines and other communities,

legal aid services are being withdrawn because the government refuses to respond to Legal Aid Ontario and Legal Aid Ontario coalition submissions just to update the legal aid tariffs.

It's about access to justice, and our entire justice system depends on it. It's time for the government to update legal aid tariffs in Ontario.

RANDY HOSACK

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): I rise today to recognize the passing of an outstanding public servant, Randy Hosack. I wish to extend

sincere condolences on behalf of the Honourable Bob Runciman, Minister of Public Safety and Security, and myself to Mr Hosack's family, friends and co-workers.

Mr Hosack served the public in the Ministry of Correctional Services for 34 years, and he was deputy superintendent at Sprucedale Youth Centre in Simcoe. Mr

Hosack was actually due to retire on July 1 of this year, after a very accomplished career. Indeed, he was described by his colleagues as the cornerstone of Sprucedale.

His family, friends and colleagues numbered in the hundreds at the memorial service held on the grounds of Sprucedale over the weekend to honour him and to pay

their respects to his wife, Pat; his son, Paul, who is a lawyer in Simcoe; and his grandson, Brock.

On behalf of Minister Runciman, I would like to express my gratitude for his many years of service to the people of this province. Deputy Superintendent Hosack

served our province well. He touched the lives of many people, colleagues and especially the youth who now collectively mourn his passing.

The fine career of Mr Hosack is what excellence in public service is all about. Randy Hosack exemplified an outstanding public servant. He was an inspiration

to many and will be truly missed.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave