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

September 20, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Sep-20 (PDF)

L081 - Thu 20 Sep 2012 / Jeu 20 sep 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 20 September 2012 Jeudi 20 septembre 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

MUNICIPALITIES

POWER PLANTS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

FIRE SAFETY

POWER PLANTS

OBSTETRICAL CARE

INVASIVE SPECIES

POWER PLANTS

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

YOUTH SERVICES

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY

INNISFIL CELTIC FESTIVAL

TEACHERS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

ITALIAN WALK OF FAME

SAM YOUNG

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

JAYESH’S LAW (WORKER SAFETY

AT SERVICE STATIONS), 2012 /

LOI JAYESH DE 2012

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES TRAVAILLEURS

DANS LES STATIONS-SERVICE

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY

SUPPLEMENTS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

(SUPPLÉMENT POUR INVALIDITÉ

PARTIELLE À CARACTÈRE PERMANENT)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC ATHLETES

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

CYCLING

RADIATION SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

POWER PLANT

AIR-RAIL LINK

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WIND TURBINES

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

RADIATION SAFETY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

WATER TESTING /

ANALYSE D’EAU

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT (RETROFITTING

OF RETIREMENT HOMES WITH

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

(MODERNISATION DES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE PAR L’INSTALLATION

D’EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WATER TESTING

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT (RETROFITTING

OF RETIREMENT HOMES WITH

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

(MODERNISATION DES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE PAR L’INSTALLATION

D’EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 13, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity and recognizing me to speak on Bill 82, a bill which is, I think, extremely important and has created quite a buzz out there in the broader community. I’ll speak to it in a moment.

But let me start by congratulating the member from Scarborough–Guildwood, the Minister of Consumer Services, for her leadership on this particular bill, for bringing such a comprehensive piece of legislation forward in the Ontario Legislature; and also the member from Sault Ste. Marie, who brought forward a private member’s bill initially in this regard and obviously worked very hard in terms of the research he did in putting together a private member’s bill and then, of course, working with the government and working with the Minister of Consumer Services and convincing her that this is the right thing to do.

So a big hats off to the member from Sault Ste. Marie, as well, for his leadership on this issue.

This is something that I’ve been quite interested in for some time. In fact, strangely enough, I was doing a fair bit of research on this particular issue as well and was starting the process of drafting it before the member from Sault Ste. Marie’s bill came forward, which I was very happy to see. Therefore, needless to say, I 100% agree and support this bill. This is a very important step in the right direction to protect consumers who use wireless technologies. Now I say wireless technologies because we’re not just talking about cellphones anymore.

We’ve got all kinds of smart products that we use, from BlackBerrys to iPhones, but iPads now and other kinds of tablets which have become so commonplace, of such common usage in our daily lives.

I remember very distinctly when I got my first cellphone. The first cellphone I got was in 2000. I went all through university without owning a cellphone, because there was no need for it—no need whatsoever. It was back in 2000, and I was in the process of becoming a young lawyer and I felt that for my professional purposes I would need a cellphone. I still remember that particular device: very limited in functionality from today’s standards and a little bulkier than what we are used to today, but obviously it did the job of making phone calls. I’m sure if I look in my basement, I’ll still find that phone somewhere, sitting in the bottom of a box, just for nostalgic purposes.

But after that, I have entered in many, many cellphone contracts. I have had my share of stories and will talk a little bit about them. I’m sure we can all share stories when it comes to contracts relating to cellphones or wireless technology, when it comes to the so-called cell shock we get when we see the bill and see charges that we don’t understand and don’t know what they mean. You call the various telecommunication companies, and you get different answers in that regard.

You know, one of the stories I remember—an issue that is squarely dealt with in Bill 82—was dealing with cancellation charges. I got a BlackBerry for myself, one of those old, bulkier types. I signed on. I was asked to sign on for a four-year contract; I’m sure we’re all used to that. I figured this was appropriate. The contract, I recall, was extremely convoluted—and the nature of those contracts has not changed, by the way. I’m a lawyer by profession. I like to read these contracts; I like to read the fine points.

But when you’re standing in a store in a mall, be it owned by a large telecommunications company or one of those affiliates or subsidiary retail stores, you really don’t have time to read through the multiple pages of a contract. In fact, the deal is apparently so good that you’ve got to sign on today to get it. What happens is that people do sign on.

The nature of consumers, when it comes to use of cellphones, has changed. I was talking about getting one myself in 2000; I was almost 30 years old at that time. Now, young children have cellphones—not only cellphones; they have smart-phone devices. A lot of times, parents are the ones getting it for them. Teenagers are procuring these by themselves. I’m sure that if we did a quick survey right now, most of our pages in the Legislature have cellphones. They really don’t have the knowledge, the know-how or perhaps the capacity to understand these very lengthy contracts, and I was a victim of the same thing.

I signed this contract; it seemed pretty simple to me at the time. But through circumstances beyond my control, when two years later I needed to get out of that contract, well, guess what? Now, two years in the cellphone world, you will recall, are leap years, because the technology is changing so fast, and the product you’ve got in hand is of no value whatsoever. So two years later, when I was trying to get out of the cellphone—because of an employment situation I was getting a phone etc.—well, you can, yes, but the cost was over $400 in penalty costs, over $400 for me to get out of that contract with a phone that was really of no use. It was old technology.

My story, I’m sure, is not unique to what others out in the community have experienced. This particular bill really deals with that issue and puts limits on cellphone carrier companies as to how much they can charge in terms of cancellation or termination charges—a very important step.

It also requires that cellphone agreements be written in plain language so everyone can understand what they are agreeing to. That’s absolutely essential when it comes to transparency, when it comes to protecting consumers—no doubt about it. I do not understand why cellphone contracts have to be more complicated and written in such a small, fine font size than when purchasing a car. It seems like purchasing a car is a far more straightforward process, which is a far more expensive purchase one will make in their lifetime than a cellphone, which has more now become a necessity of life, a regular thing that we all have on a daily basis.

Deceiving people—any company engaging in that type of practice—is alienating consumers. There are enough choices now. There are enough options out there for you to shop around. So from a business point of view, if I was one of these companies, I would embrace these changes wholeheartedly, because it’s only going to make you that much more attractive to consumers out there, who are looking for hassle-free services in their lives. So I really hope and I really think that businesses, the telecommunication companies, are receptive to these changes and are welcoming of these changes.

In fact, I hope they adopt these things even before it becomes law, because it just makes sense. Express consent before renewing, extending or amending a fixed-term contract is a step in the right direction. It’s something which is extremely important, and I very much support that it is part of this bill.

The other piece I really like, which I think is a source of large confusion, is all-inclusive pricing. Again, we see these ads—if you look at today’s newspaper, they’re probably half a page or a full page—from various telecommunications companies offering their products. Like I said, I think it is my legal training, or maybe I have just too much time on my hands—

Interjection.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: —it’s the latter, I guess—but I like to read the fine print. I like to see what those asterisks or those little crosses or those little squares mean. That’s a lawyer thing, I guess. If you notice, at the bottom of those advertisements there is this minute, minute writing.

Mr. Rob Leone: Two-point font.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Maybe less than two-point font. The member from Cambridge is saying “two-point font”—I think it’s sometimes less—which outlines all the real stuff. Even somebody with good vision cannot read this unless they have a magnifying glass. What are you trying to hide? There’s no need to hide anything. Let’s get that out in public; it’s just good business practice.

Having a provision that requires all-inclusive pricing, where you know exactly what you’re purchasing, what the cost is, with all the bells and whistles you may want, is a good thing. It will make for better decision-making by consumers, and I think it’s extremely important that we require that, as opposed to getting that surprise or so-called cell shock when you get the bill. “Oh, you didn’t realize there’s a price for X, there’s a price for Y and there’s a cost for Z.” It just does not make sense; it is bad business practice. I think it’s deceiving to consumers.

Requiring in law, as in this legislation, Bill 82, that there be all-inclusive pricing is very much a step in the right direction.

For all those reasons, I think this is a good bill. I’m really hopeful that all the members in this Legislature will support this bill, because I think these are the kinds of things that we, as a Legislature, need to do to protect our consumers on a daily basis.

I have to say that since this bill was tabled—in fact, the private member’s bill and then the government bill—I’ve been hearing a lot of support in this regard in my riding of Ottawa Centre. In fact, I started a petition in support, and I have received hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures from folks in my community of Ottawa Centre saying, “Yes, we need more consumer protection. Yes, we need more transparency in this regard.”

Just this past Saturday, I was in the Wellington West village part of my riding. There’s a great event called Taste of Wellington West that takes place in the riding every fall, where all the businesses come out and sell their goods and have little treats and whatnot. It’s a great family-friendly event—it was a beautiful sunny day. I always have a community tent set up during that event, an opportunity for me to speak with constituents and give them information about consumer protection and other things their government is doing on their behalf, so that they know.

So this issue came up. I had the petition, and a lot of people signed on to that petition. But what I wanted to tell you is that somebody called me from the street. It was a gentleman on a bicycle; I can’t remember his name right now. He stopped me and said, “Where’s that bill on cellphones?”

I said, “Actually, it’s going through second reading debate. In fact, I’ll be speaking to it on Thursday morning.”

He said, “You know, I’m very supportive of this. Let me know if I can help in any way, because this is something that we need.”

You know, you rarely get that kind of endorsement on a particular bill. People really don’t pay attention to these types of things. But for somebody to stop me on the street and say, “I support it. Tell me what I can do. I have a blog. I have a website. I would like to write about this”—I’m hoping that he and I will be able to connect, to speak on how can we ensure that people are making smart decisions, and how we can make sure that people do have information at their disposal so they can make decisions, especially on things like acquisition of cellphone services.

Like I said, these are nothing unique anymore in our lives; this is not really a luxury anymore in our lives. This is almost a necessity. People use them. People of all ages have some sort of device. I’m sure you’ve recently noticed that one of the telecommunications companies even has a special plan for seniors. They’re really sort of promoting a simpler cellphone with fewer bells and whistles and bigger buttons and whatnot, because they realize there’s a market out there where seniors may not want something complicated like a BlackBerry or an iPhone or an Android device. They want something simple so they can connect with their loved ones or have emergency services at their disposal.

I think having a mechanism in place, as outlined in Bill 82, that requires that contracts be written in plain language; that requires that there be all-inclusive pricing; that requires that there be caps on termination, just in case you’ve changed your mind or circumstances change in your life—that happens—by which you need to get out of the contract; and the requirement that there be express consent needed in order to amend or extend or renew a contract, is extremely important. These are grievances people face in life which are not necessary.

We just need to make sure that rules are in place, that these are the least of the headaches people should worry about. Life is complicated as it is, for whatever circumstances, and people have to worry about a lot of things. The last thing they need to worry about is their cellphone contract or the wireless contract they have for their iPad or other mobile devices that we use all the time.

Speaker, my time is coming to an end, but I just wanted to restate my 100% support for Bill 82. I’m really hopeful that the debate will conclude soon in the Legislature, once the time is up, so we can take it to committee, so we can hear from various stakeholders, because I am sure there will be different views from the industry, from consumer groups, from other broader community members; we can take them into account and make the necessary changes.

I’m sure there will be some suggestions into amendments as to how we can make the language clearer in this bill, which is always welcome, which is part of the democratic process. Then, bring it back for third reading in the Legislature and pass it.

I really hope we can pass this before Christmas, and I say this intentionally, because Christmas is a time when you start making these purchases a lot, because these are times where—you know, I’m already hearing from my wife, “Oh, there’s a new iPad coming out.” Right? So those requests are coming in.

Interjection.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Yes, and our young baby too, who I’m sure will be using a phone sooner than later.

Those requests are already coming in. We need to make sure this bill is in place at the right time, so when people are making those big purchases, when they are engaging in that activity, they are fully protected, and we as a Legislature are doing our jobs to ensure that Ontarians are able to continue to live a hassle-free life.

Thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me the time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to make some comments about the speech from the member from Ottawa Centre. First of all, Speaker, our party, while believing in this bill as well, also wants to see a long series of amendments and proper consultation. I think that’s going to be important.

The member from Ottawa Centre said he hopes this is done by Christmas. You’re going to need to form committees in order to get that done. I know the Liberal Party took six months to form the committees when we were first elected, which resulted in us only getting four bills passed in our first 11 months, which I’m embarrassed to say are the facts. But I do agree; it would be nice. If we got the committees formed early, Speaker, we may actually be able to look at talking about our amendments and having plenty of consultation on this bill.

The member also said there’s broad choice out there, and I want to take a couple of seconds to talk about northern Ontario, because there isn’t quite the broad choice in northern Ontario.

In fact, most of us here from the north chuckled when we saw the cuts being made in the tourism sector in the northwestern part of the province, when they said, “Oh, if you’re looking for tourist information, all you have to do is fire up the app on your mobile phone and look at the app, and you’ll get all the tourist information that you want on northwestern Ontario.” But I have to tell you, Speaker, there’s not that kind of coverage in northwestern Ontario.

So while we appreciate that, here in the centre of the world, in Toronto, there really is a broad choice, there really is a much more limited choice in the north, which means more reason for us to actually support this bill.

My final point is: You talked about the two-point type and you’re wondering, “What are they trying to hide?” I’ve got to throw that back at the member and say, what are you trying to hide, as well? We’re trying to get the documents on Oakville and Mississauga. I ask you the same question you asked: What are you trying to hide?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join today’s debate. I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre. He truly has the gift of gab. We all know that in this House. He’s eloquent. I can only imagine what his cellphone bills are, and I certainly wouldn’t want to see the minutes used.

I do appreciate the intent of this bill. I understand it is a measure to bring about some clarity and transparency when it comes to cellphone contracts. In our country, we are large users of cellphones and the Internet. We’re becoming a lot more technologically savvy. I think it’s about time that we shine some light on what is essentially a Wild West scenario in the cellphone industry when it comes to contracts. It’s a measure of accountability and transparency.

I would point to a measure we brought about as New Democrats, where we proposed to cap gas prices at the pump on Monday mornings. This House voted against that measure of transparency and accountability. I think the intent is the same: to bring some transparency to the cellphone industry. Why not to another important measure of our economy, gas prices?

We are anxious to see this go to committee, to hear submissions from consumers and consumer groups, because we know that these are the folks who actually have some great ideas as to how we can make this industry a lot more user-friendly.

New Democrats are prepared to propose some ideas. Certainly, one of them would be to make sure that people who are currently in contracts are afforded the transparency that this bill may provide, something that I think is being asked for out there as we canvass and talk to residents in our ridings who currently have exorbitant cellphone bills and are struggling to try to find some rationale within those costs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak on Bill 82, the proposed Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2012. Four other provinces—Quebec, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia—have introduced similar provisions. David Orazietti’s private member’s bill was a precursor to this proposed legislation, and as a result of that, we did some consultation previously in this regard, with respect to this proposed legislation.

This proposed legislation, if passed, will provide greater transparency and stronger protections for Ontario consumers and their families when they sign contracts for cellphones and wireless services. It will help us to ensure that Ontario consumers are better protected when it comes to wireless services agreements—protected in terms of their rights, the contract they enter into, the way in which services are provided, knowing how much they will have to pay, and their ability to take advantage of choices in the marketplace.

As these wireless plans are mostly postpaid, meaning consumers enter into agreements before using the services, and they get their monthly bills after they have used the services, it is important for us to have the kind of protection that is needed to protect our consumers.

It is our growing reliance on these devices, with so many people using them and finding they do not understand the services and plans they contracted for, the changes in the contract terms—this is what has given rise to what we have termed “cell shock.” Cell shock is what happens when consumers open their wireless services bill and receive exorbitant charges they were not expecting. Cell shock is what happens when consumers are not aware that they’re using services that will add additional charges to their bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to Ontario consumers and to their families to ensure that when they, like millions of cellphone customers, sign agreements each year, they are clear, comprehensive, easy to understand.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Before I refer to the next member, I’ll remind all members of the House that we don’t refer to people by their name but by their riding.

Questions and comments. The member for Burlington.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to lend my voice to the ongoing debate around Bill 82, the Wireless Services Agreements Act.

We here in the House all want consumers to be able to make informed decisions. We all want to protect Ontario consumers and to have them be able to go about their lives with eyes open but free from costly and unexpected fine-print complications. Bill 82 seems to line up with those goals. I think there’s a consensus that Bill 82 is a decent bill and that government attention to this issue is perhaps overdue.

I also think that there’s widespread agreement that this legislation could be improved greatly at committee through hearing the voices and perspectives of various stakeholders in the public and private spheres.

When we get down to clause-by-clause consideration, we will hopefully be able to make the kind of level-headed amendments that will protect consumers without creating unnecessary overlap with other jurisdictions or a ream of red tape for the telecommunications industry, because if Bill 82 adds endless regulation and red tape, it could also end up costing consumers in the end, which is obviously not the intent.

Bill 82 has some sensible measures to help cap cancellation fees, prevent automatic renewals and make mobile contracts simpler, written in easy-to-understand language that’s as clear as ice water. But at the moment, some members on this side of the House have identified the potential for an unwanted downside to this legislation, specifically with regard to the overlap with similar regulations in other jurisdictions. We should be able to agree on the benefits of a healthy, vibrant and innovative telecommunications sector.

We should want to reduce the red tape and regulatory burden, because it affects consumers as well as businesses. In working together, I think we can all contribute to strengthening the legislation so that it is beneficial to all of us.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Ottawa Centre, you have two minutes.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. We were having such a good, non-partisan morning—but debate is the essence of this Legislature.

I do want to thank the members for Nipissing and Essex, the Minister of Consumer Services and the member from Burlington for bringing in their perspectives on this, because I truly believe, and I think the members will also agree with me, that this is not a partisan issue; this is an issue that impacts all Ontarians equally, no matter which part of the province they come from.

Yes, there are some unique challenges, and I appreciate the member from Nipissing raising the unique challenge around Nipissing. I think he highlighted in his own comments that this legislation is even more important for communities like the northwest, where the choices in terms of providers may be limited, because this will create better circumstances for northwestern Ontarians to get services at an affordable price in their communities.

Keeping that in mind, I think it’s important that we do all work together. It sends a very strong message out in the community—because one thing we know about politics is that people get turned off because of partisan bickering. That’s not what people want. That’s not what people engage in. They would like to see their legislators, no matter what label, no matter what colour they don, come together and make their lives better.

I think if there is a bill out there right now in front of this Legislature that really does that, it’s Bill 82, because it speaks to a real issue which is not ideological in nature—unless you just don’t agree with consumer protection, but I don’t think anybody in this House has those types of views. I think it brings us together and it really can bring the best of all of us out in ensuring that we put Ontarians first, and that we make sure we have a process in place that results in better consumer choices. Therefore, I support this and I ask the members to support it as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

There’s been a lot of input from across the country. Not only that; as you mentioned, Quebec has it in place already—Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario. Any decisions made by the CRTC will supersede this bill. I believe it’s true, and I think it’s important—Ontario is such a large province—to contribute to a successful consumer protection bill. I commend that provision. I wonder, sometimes, if the member from Sault Ste. Marie wouldn’t be somewhat surprised. I hope you give him—we should call it the David Orazietti bill, using it in the context that that would be the name of the legislation.

It’s important that the minister or the ministry staff are listening, because some time ago I initiated a bill on driver distraction. It was a result of an inquest in my riding where a father and his young daughter were killed crossing a railway crossing. There was an inquest that was able to conclude, I suppose, that the cause was that the father was passing his cellphone to the young daughter to say goodbye to the mother. It was a tragic event. I realized how ubiquitous the whole wireless world is. I mean, it’s everywhere.

It’s taking over on cars now; you have HUD, heads-up display, where it displays it on the windshield. It’s really, quite frankly, now integrated, with OnStar, a General Motors product. They have a similar Microsoft product for Chrysler and Ford, where it’s totally integrated into the intelligence of the vehicle itself. In fact, it can tell you if you’re going to back into something or even assist in steering in.

The whole issue here of the world of business is important—voice, text and data and the charges that we’re charged for. It’s clear that most people understand that Canada has some of the highest rates in the world. In the previous remarks made in this House, we were told that in India it’s about $13, and in Canada it’s $70. That would be for a monthly charge. In most countries like Denmark, where Nokia was first developed, they don’t have any—it’s all wireless; it’s all cellphones. There’s no more of this running cables from here to there and all that kind of stuff; that’s just completely prehistoric. We can talk to the moon, now, from earth, so I think we can manage.

What we need is clear consumer protection. This is where we agree, and our position from our critic was that we would have hearings. Now, the hearings should call on the stakeholders within the industry as well as consumer protection groups. The consumer protection groups that I’ve looked up myself in preparation—just a little departure here. I just hired a new staff person this week, Michael Pew. Michael, the new staff person, already has three cellphones. He has one for me, one for Jane McKenna and one for his own use. It’s quite frankly an example of what I said earlier: they have different functions.

He wants the calls to deal with me telling him to do something to be on my phone, and the ones from Ms. McKenna—from Burlington, I should say—on that phone, and his own personal calls, I want them kept off my line. Do you understand? I don’t want to be paying for any of his roaming charges or whatever else he might be doing, downloading music or uploading an app. That’s exactly how it is.

Even our children today—I have nine grandchildren, and these children have iPads. These iPads teach them things just by point, touch, sounds and developing visual images of the world around them. I would suspect that, in reading this release here—competition in the Canadian wireless sector. This is saying that the hearings about the CRTC—in 1994, they decided that they really weren’t that interested in tightly regulating the industry; they wanted more competition. So more providers came in.

Then you started to get these complex contracts; thicker than the instruction book was the contract itself, of all the options. Very few people read the fine print, as the previous member from Ottawa, Mr. Naqvi—he was clear on that: These contracts are themselves a challenge for consumers. I would say the CRTC hearings should be paid attention to. The Consumers Council of Canada, it said here, and their president, Don Mercer, recognized Mr.

Orazietti and “is encouraged that the Ontario government has decided to make this initiative part of its agenda” as a government bill. “The private member’s bill enjoyed all-party support”—we support it—“so the council is optimistic the government’s bill will receive broad support.” It gives all MPPs an opportunity, whether in northern Ontario, urban Ontario or rural Ontario, to comment with respect to the lack of service in some areas, blackout cells within my area. I’m driving along in my riding of Durham and bang, you’re gone.

The person listening to you may consider that you may have gone off the road or something.

I think what’s important in any consumer protection bill is clarity, plain language and disclosure. Really, what it is is there are two parties to the agreement: One is the consumer and one is the provider, and the disclosure is the first part of the provider.

Now, the responsibility on the consumer is to read the contract or have it explained to them in plain language. If we can achieve that, there still is a responsibility for the consumer. People who are walking around talking on cellphones all the time—I can’t believe it. In fact, it’s a pedestrian hazard now if you walk down the street. But they have a responsibility. These gadgets that they’re all attached to are not for free.

Somebody has to put the software in place and the cell towers and sort out all the communication gadgetry and digitalization, but I think that’s important to keep in mind: that the consumer has to be responsible at the end of the day. One of the people said that we should—the consumer’s report said that we should not mollycoddle the consumer. This is a case where you can only do so much, Minister, in all fairness, to legislate against—should I be so coarse as to say?—stupidity.

I think we need to change the channel, as I said before. I know for myself, the biggest surprise I’ve had in the 17 or 18 years that I’ve been here—and Mr. Arnott’s been here over 20. It’s surprising; he’s only about 30 years old. But I would say this: The biggest surprise for me was the roaming charges. When I was out of the province, I was mistaken—this was some years ago—that I was only receiving calls from my office and/or reading press releases and stuff like that, so I was getting voice communication as well as data communication.

I came home only to find that I’d had a humongous roaming charge bill on top of my normal cell charges. That’s another thing that people need to be aware of: the use of it, and downloading.

Maybe some of the people who are more technically literate in this stuff—they’re always talking about bandwidth, too. If you’re downloading movies and all this kind of stuff—and that’s the future. If you’ve got an iPad—which is a phone, it’s a camera, it’s a GPS device; it’s a multi-functional gadget—you could be watching movies. You could be watching live-streaming hockey. I’ve watched, on mine, live-streaming broadcasts, newscasts. It’s incredible. If you leap ahead five years, these young pages who are here—there will be, really, virtually no reason to write. You’ll be able to speak and it will record it.

It will record it in digital format, and so you’ll be able to send it to somebody as an email. You won’t have to type it. That’s months away. This is becoming a rather important tool in life, and in that respect, we need to have clear, simple rules on the bill.

Now, there are a couple of sections in the bill which I had the chance to look at. I think

section 17 is “Cancellation by consumer at any time.” This is important, so I took a look at this section. Let me have a look here. I underlined it because there are so many good sections here. I don’t know if this is actually as clear as the bill could be, so I’d ask the minister to look at that section. I’m going to jump right in.

The first

section says, “A consumer may, at any time, and without any reason, cancel a wireless agreement by giving notice to the supplier.” It goes on to say that it “takes effect on the later of the date the consumer gives notice of cancellation to the supplier or the date that the consumer specifies in the notice, which date cannot be later than the expiry date....” It’s pretty straightforward. I haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about technically. I know that there’s a requirement to inform the supplier, and then the supplier would inform you. So it’s two-way knowledge that they’ve received it, and you should keep that record, somehow, on the cellphone itself or in some data file somewhere.

“Subject to this section, the cancellation terminates the rights and obligation of the parties under the wireless agreement on a go-forward basis from the date on which the cancellation takes effect....

“If the consumer cancels a wireless agreement with no fixed term”—this is important—“and in respect of which the supplier provided no goods to the consumer free of charge or at a discount, the supplier shall not charge the consumer a cancellation fee”—and it goes on to say—“and shall not demand, request or accept payment for the cancellation.”

But it goes on further. There can be charges for cancellation. It would be part of the original agreement and in the disclosure.

There’s another part here, the calculated formula; it’s very complicated, how they calculate this cancellation fee. That’s on page 11, if people want to look it up.

There’s another

section here on the fines. I found that fairly onerous too, I would say. Why do they have these big numbers in here? People don’t pay them, I think. They go to court instead of paying.

Here’s what it says. This is under “General,” and these are on the “Offences.” “An individual who is convicted of an offence under this act is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000”—holy smokes; I hope some of these young people walking around with a cellphone are aware the fine could be $50,000—that’s for an individual—or imprisonment for up to two years less a day. A corporation, if convicted—it’s $250,000 for a violation.

So there’s some pretty, pretty onerous material in this particular bill. I think it’s well intended. Our position is clear: We would be asking for an extensive consultation with the shareholders.

I would only say here that in the

preamble, which explains, “The act contains other measures for protecting consumers under a wireless agreement. For example, a supplier must have a system”—the supplier—“in place for providing advance notice to the consumer when the consumer accesses a service under the agreement that will result in a cost in addition to the minimum periodic cost.” In other words, if you haven’t got it in your contract to just download data or movies, they’re supposed to develop a system to notify you. You can’t just go ahead and do it under a contract that didn’t include that advantage.

If you have a contract that’s on a month-to-month basis, which many of them are today—I think it’s five out of every 10 people have a cellphone. Now, the vast majority of them are on a month-to-month—casual. But if somebody takes the phone and starts playing around with it, downloading stuff and stuff like that, they could end up with real charges.

“A consumer is allowed to cancel a wireless agreement” and to amend the agreement, and do all this without reason. So there’s quite a bit of improvement there for the consumers themselves and some additional responsibilities for the provider. I could say that, in my own case, I have looked into this, and I’m considering a couple of other points that I’m looking for.

One of the things, without criticizing any of the suppliers—we, probably all in the Legislature here, are with one supplier, and that supplier’s bills, I would like them to be a little more straightforward. We get a monthly bill. You can hardly untangle whether they’ve taken your last payment off the bill. I think that billing itself is a problem for me. I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, you might have been shaking your head there too. But I have completely great staff in my office in Bowmanville who kindly look after that, but I sign everything because, ultimately, we’re responsible.

These are the actions taken, I would say. A submission by Rogers to Leonard Katz, who was the acting chair of the CRTC—and this is in March; it’s

part 1 of the application by Rogers partnership to implement a national wireless services consumer protection code. So, the industry themselves is taking heed to this, and they’ve made this delegation or presentation to the CRTC, and I commend them for that. It talks about

section 24 of the Telecommunications Act, the federal bill. “Rogers Communications Partnership … hereby request that the commission establish a CRTC interconnection steering committee to develop and implement a national wireless services consumer code....” That’s the goal that we should all be aiming at. I put that to the minister because that’s the industry’s—probably the one that we’re most familiar with—position on it for sure.

If you look at it, as I said, there are five wireless users out of every 10 people—there are a lot of people there—and we must avoid overlap in jurisdictions. The minister would know this as well, that “legal proceedings are before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act. The bureau is seeking:

“—full refunds for customers”—and this is before the courts already, and I think that these things are good signals that the minister is on the right track and, I believe, the member from Sault Ste. Marie and other provinces;

“—administrative monetary penalties—$10 million each from Bell, Rogers and Telus, and $1 million from the” Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, “CWTA;

So it’s before the courts. Other jurisdictions have done it. They say that Quebec is watching very closely what Ontario is doing, and I think the contribution that members here make about having clear transparency will help all Canadians, and that’s the end goal.

Our critic on this file, Mr. McDonell, said a few things that I want to put on the record, because he has done considerable work on this. The bill is “jumping the gun,” and it’s a “me, too” bill, meaning everybody else is doing it. But Ontario is a large province and needs to be playing at the table here.

The CRTC is preparing to create a national regulation. The major providers are on board with the CRTC. The bill was announced eight days after the CRTC announced consultation was tabled, the same day as the consultations closed. We must avoid a patchwork of regulations across the country. The bill tries to outdo Quebec by forcing an early warning system that users, when they are about to hit their limit with their operator—it will be at a greater cost, and they have to be notified. They’re estimating $100 million per operator—$100 million, holy smokes.

There are free and cheap apps that are already on the market. Consumers deserve protection as high cancellation fees are not reasonable, and we all agree with that. Bill 5, as I said, has been sort of eclipsed, I guess. The government doesn’t share the whole truth regarding complaints. They cite the telecommunications complaints commissioner, who logged 8,000 complaints against cellphone providers. The Ministry of Consumer Services itself received some complaints about cellphone providers, and it goes on to say that gyms receive many more complaints.

So there’s no catastrophic failure in the marketplace; in fact, we should make the marketplace more consumer-friendly. On our side, I’m sure many members will wish to speak about this bill here. I only wish I had more time. I don’t know what I would say actually, but there is much more to be said, and even listening to other members I think could be a contribution as well. Even the complaints commissioner sides with the supplier often, saying that we shouldn’t mollycoddle the consumers too much. So there you are.

Again, the CRTC is the ultimate boss at the end of the day, and I suppose they’re listening, hopefully, to this speech this morning, because it was so informative. But 25% of cellphone users are on a month-to-month agreement, and these are the ones who don’t realize that some of the stuff that they’re applying to or applications they’re using could in fact be a super-charge on their bill, which may cause them to issue a complaint, which means they should have read the contract in the first place.

Thank you for the time this morning, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, this bill will be of consequence to a lot of people in Ontario, because I think a lot of people in Ontario are quite shocked by their wireless charges. I think my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin will be talking about the kinds of problems that people face when they call in to see if they can get reductions in their charges, and in the end find that they’ve been sold a whole bunch of new services.

Increasingly, there’s no doubt that people come to rely on their wireless services, on their cellphones, and the member from Durham was quite correct: Increasingly people move away from land lines to become wireless operators in all aspects of their lives.

I look forward to hearing Mr. Mantha talk about this bill, because—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Once again, I’ll remind all my colleagues that we should refer to members by their riding.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The member for Algoma–Manitoulin—and quite proud he is to be that representative. Thank you for the reminder, Mr. Speaker. I’m very appreciative.

The bill, however, is very limited in the matters that it addresses. I’m sure that there will be opportunities, as we go further down this road, to look at improvements.

There’s no question this bill wouldn’t be here today if there wasn’t a lot of upset and anger amongst cellphone wireless customers who find that they get bills that letter carriers roll into their homes on wheels. They’re big. They’re expensive. We pay some of the highest wireless and cellphone charges in the world here in Ontario. That matter of people paying a fortune for service which is much cheaper in many other jurisdictions is going to become increasingly pressing.

I appreciate the opportunity today to address the matter.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the member from Ottawa Centre, who spoke earlier. I also want to thank all the members who are speaking positively, and I look forward to all members of the Legislature supporting this bill.

I would like to respond to the member from Durham regarding the CRTC. I am well aware that the CRTC is holding hearings to determine whether they should take action in the future. Basically, having hearings to possibly hold future hearings is the action that’s been taken so far by the CRTC. I am encouraged to hear that they are taking action with respect to this and am looking forward to it. But in the interim, life goes on here in the province of Ontario. We have a responsibility to Ontario consumers, and that is why we want to act with respect to this bill, because I don’t know how long these hearings are going to go on.

The member from Durham also spoke about an incident in Durham that I’m quite familiar with: a father and daughter who were killed near the railway tracks. That was a very tragic incident of someone talking on the phone, with a young child in the car, and both died. I think this is a great opportunity for us to remind Ontarians not to text while driving and not to use hand-held mobile devices while driving, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the member from Toronto–Danforth, who spoke about people being upset and angry relating to the shock that they get—the cell shock we refer to—when they get the bills, where they are not expecting the kind of monies that are on the bill. The response is that this proposed legislation is here to provide some security for the members of the public when they get their cellphone bills, to know that they’re not going to be surprised when they get their bills. They want to be able to have some assurance that they are—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I was very pleased to have the opportunity to listen to the member for Durham this morning as he talked about Bill 82. As he always does, he brought forward the views of his constituents very effectively, and also his own wisdom and experience in terms of his service as a member of the Legislature for many years. He offered some very interesting comments.

In terms of this bill and in terms of regulation respecting the use of cellphones and the billing procedures, he mentioned that there needs to be clarity, there needs to be plain language and there needs to be full disclosure in terms of the agreements that people are signing. He mentioned there needs to be clearer consumer protection. I would certainly agree with all of those statements.

As he said, cellphones and other hand-held devices are ubiquitous in our society today. I think back to when I was first elected to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker—and you’ll recall this, too, 20, 25 years ago—cellphones were almost the size of bricks. Very few people actually had them. But I remember through the years, more and more—in fact, now most high school students have them in their knapsacks, including my own two sons.

The fact is, we have to ensure that consumer protection legislation is in place and that it’s fair for both the providers as well as the consumers.

The member for Durham is too modest. He talked about his role in terms of the highway safety legislation which banned the use of cellphones or other hand-held devices while people are operating a motor vehicle. In fact, he pushed for that for many years and, in the finest traditions of this Legislature, brought forward private members’ bills which in fact led, ultimately, to a government bill that has improved highway safety dramatically.

I would take this opportunity to remind people, as I remind my own son who’s 17 and just got his G2 licence, that we have to be very careful on the highway. Obviously, studies have shown that the use of cellphones or other hand-held devices, if you’re using them when you’re driving, in fact, is more dangerous perhaps than even driving while impaired.

Again, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, and I look forward to the continued debate on Bill 82.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait plaisir de rajouter quelques détails au sujet du discours qui a été porté par le député de Durham au niveau du projet de loi 82. Le projet de loi s’appelle la Loi visant à mieux protéger les consommateurs en ce qui concerne les conventions de consommation portant sur les services sans fil accessibles au moyen d’un téléphone cellulaire, d’un téléphone intelligent ou de tout autre appareil mobile semblable.

Les commentaires qui ont été faits sont des commentaires avec lesquels je suis en accord. Je dirais que tout le monde ici, tous les députés à l’Assemblée, ont un téléphone cellulaire. L’Assemblée nous permet d’en avoir un, mais je dirais que dans notre vie personnelle, ainsi que dans celle des membres de notre famille, nos voisins, etc., maintenant quasiment tout le monde a un cellulaire.

Et les surprises continuent, bien que les consommateurs soient souvent à leur deuxième ou troisième appareil cellulaire. Ils ont eu des contrats avant. Ils sont à l’affût des possibilités que les compagnies leur chargent trop. Ils négocient leur contrat, ils surveillent les ventes, etc., et lorsque la première facture arrive, c’est toujours la même chose : des surprises, des frais cachés, des frais excédentaires. On pensait qu’on les avait discutés, on pensait qu’on les avait réglés, et : « Non, ah non, c’est parce que vous avez uploadé un tel service » ou « Vous êtes allé sur un site Internet quelconque.

Ça fait qu’on vient de rajouter un autre 3,50 $ sur votre facture. » Le mois suivant, c’est un autre six dollars sur votre facture, puis à la fin de l’année c’est des centaines de dollars excédentaires qui ont été ajoutés aux factures des consommateurs.

Je suis en accord avec les points que le député de Durham a soulevés.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Durham, you have two minutes.

I do appreciate that the growth in our own office budgets in this one issue is the technology piece. Everybody has one or two cellphones. You have three or four staff. It’s probably $300 or $400 a month. It’s quite unusual. I remember when I worked for a large company that we used to have a pager, and I think it was $50 a month or something so they could always get in touch with you. The cellphone and the wireless stuff that our young people will have is the office of the future.

You can find out anything, you can talk anywhere, you can get anywhere from anywhere, so we need to have clear rules—and privacy issues as well—with respect to voice, text and data and how we’re going to receive and transmit this information and the service provider’s responsibility in all of that.

I look forward to broader consultations on this. I’m sure it will be interesting and informative and will therefore protect consumers by the very discussion we’re having. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I look forward to the day where, in Algoma–Manitoulin, we won’t have to rely on dial-up, where we’ll actually have cell service. That would be a big step forward.

It’s a privilege to get up, Mr. Speaker, and again, I like to give kudos where kudos are deserved: the Minister of Consumer Services and the member for his private member’s bill—good show. This is a long time coming. We should be moving it forward, and of course we’re going to be looking forward to having this bill at committee, to getting all the stakeholders and the individuals who will have their say on actually making this bill that much better.

Now, besides being the MPP for Algoma–Manitoulin, with constituents who still rely on dial-up, I have another part-time job, just so you know: I’m a troubleshooter for cell service. With me, I have a team of four individuals—one of them here in Queen’s Park and three in my constituency office—who consistently deal with troubles with cell service: billing, penalties, cancellation fees. The list goes on and on.

This is something that we consistently do. I did it, as a matter of fact, in a supporting role in my previous job, and I have to say that I was fortunate in getting remedies for some people. However, with others who didn’t come in or walk through the doors of our office, we never were able to fix them. So a lot of these measures may help that.

Every time I call my service provider, I am usually on hold for great lengths, trying to get an explanation for what I’m actually being charged for. Oftentimes, I’m convinced the hidden fees and services are unknown to their representatives. They really just don’t know what I’m talking about. So we understand this bill enacts a new act to govern these wireless agreements; therefore, an agreement between a supplier and a consumer in which the supplier agrees to provide wireless services, whether or not the supplier agrees to provide goods to the consumer under the agreement.

What I like is that under this bill the supplier must provide information on the cost to a consumer, which must be included in any price advertising. This is a fantastic idea.

Now, through our discussions that we’ll be having at the committee, can we look at applying it through the sales/marketing department of these companies? I’ll tell you about a little bit of an issue that I’ve had experience with. Individuals are receiving these wonderful advertisements: “If you call in, we have these great packages for you, and it will reduce the actual cost of your phone bill.” We’ll refer to that as the bait, all right? So the bait is set. You receive in your mail a nice announcement that says, “This is your package that you’re paying for now, but if you call, we’re going to offer you this”—a different package.

So the bait is set. A lot of individuals call in. And then, all of a sudden, as you’re calling in, that’s where the switch happens. If nobody’s familiar with the term “bait and switch,” you should be, because this happens often. Now, they switch this announcement on you, or this publication or this advertisement, and all of a sudden, by the end of the call, you have more charges on your phone, you have a new phone and you have a bigger bill than you started with. This is a bait and switch.

As I said, in my previous employment I was successful in getting individuals who would come into the office out of that contract. However, a lot of seniors are targeted through this bait and switch. Particular areas, particular communities are targeted with this type of a service, and there are a lot of people still out there that are too embarrassed that they’ve been caught in this little bit of a scam, a little bit of a catch. Those individuals are still out there paying those high prices for their cellphone service and other services, because this bait and switch is not only with cell service.

It’s also with satellite. It’s also with TV. It’s all over the place. So it’s about time that we start recognizing this particular problem.

If a wireless agreement does not meet the disclosure requirements or if a supplier does not disclose a copy of the agreement, the consumer can cancel the contract without penalties. The act includes authority to make regulations on matters such as specifying additional rights and obligations of consumers and suppliers.

What is most important for us is the need for greater protection for the consumer of wireless phones, smart phones and mobile data services, and we support this initiative.

Now seriously, I want to talk to you about an issue in my riding. I just got a message on my “WhiteBerry” here, this wonderful piece of technology that we all use. I apologize for using a prop, Mr. Speaker. My staff said it would be nice to have a service range that matches the bill; then it might not hurt so much to pay the darn bill. It would be nice to have that. Thank you to my constituency assistant Cindy.

Seriously, I wanted to tell you a little bit of a story from back home. When I first got set up here, my staff and I were a team of five, and we were trying to set up our phone service. We were arguing with the provider. I knew what I needed. He wanted to sell me his wonderful technology, this 3G, 4G. It doesn’t work in my riding; there is no support for that type of service. I needed the old CDMA. So it took four of us from my office to deal with this. It took at least three individuals from LIS to convince the provider to do it. Plus, I think it was about a three-week period when we finally got the phones.

I finally got frustrated and said, “Listen. I’ll go out and find the phones. You just put the service into it.” We were successful in doing that, but it took an army just to set us up with cellphone services and the proper cellphone service which I will be able to serve my constituents with.

So that is just in my area. Again, some of my constituents are still stuck with dial-up.

I’m all for putting an end to unfair practices. These wireless companies have become so accustomed to concealing their real costs, and every month you get a reminder in the mail. Oh, yes, that reminder which comes in the format of a bill, which every single one of us here is so happy to see, that wonderful bill—well, it costs somebody to draft that bill, and that’s an additional cost that we’re all getting as well. As I was saying, unfortunately, each month, you get that reminder that you are paying far more than what you had thought you had agreed to. We would agree that ending this culture of secrecy that results in unknown hidden fees and charges is a good thing for consumers.

New Democrats would also support another provision in the legislation which would limit contract termination penalties. Perhaps once wireless service providers start offering fair and transparent plans, once they start providing the services they claim to provide, the consumers will not be dissatisfied and will have fewer reasons for cancelling their plans in the first place.

Holding these large wireless service companies to account, especially in their advertisements, is a must. It is imperative that suppliers advertise the all-inclusive price for their service before the HST is put on to their bills. Moreover, this all-inclusive price has to be the most prominent cost information in the advertising.

The supplier has to ensure that the agreement is in writing and that it discloses the name of the consumer, the name and contact info of the supplier, the date of the agreement, the term of the agreement, the expiry date of the agreement, a description that itemizes each service, a statement indicating whether any of the goods provided with the agreement are subject to any technological or physical features that restrict their functioning, the terms and method of payment, the total amount paid by the consumer before entering into the agreement, the minimum amount payable by the consumer for each billing period, the manner of calculating the amount that the consumer is required to pay to the supplier if the consumer cancels the agreement and the total cost of the contract for the billing cycle, which is really what many people have issues with.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Prue: I’m delighted today to introduce the parents and brother of page Caelius, who, today, is one of the page captains. I’d like to introduce Sam Musharbash, the father; the mother, Franca Tarentino; and the brother, Phoenix, all of whom are here in the audience.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you, and welcome.

The member from Whitby–Oshawa.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. I have several introductions to make this morning, so I ask for your indulgence.

First, I’d like to welcome members of the Canadian Sikh Association to Queen’s Park: Jagtar Singh, Deepinder Singh Loomba and Avtar Singh Dhillon. They will be hosting a reception from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. in committee room 2. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Secondly, I’d like to welcome some guests from my riding of Whitby–Oshawa. We have Mr. Tyson Harrison, Ms. Christina Zevenhoven, Ms. Amber Harrison, Ms. Matteha Liston, and Ms. Michelle Marshall, who is the executive director of the Participation House Project of Durham region. They’re all here to listen to the private members’ business that’s happening this afternoon. And also Ms. Vanessa Foran, a co-op student who’s currently working in my office. Welcome to all of you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome all our guests.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I ask the entire Legislative Assembly to join me in welcoming a number of guests in the members’ lounge. I have Jagtar Singh, who was one of the first residents to take up the issue of wearing a dastar, wearing a turban in the bus system in Hamilton; Deepinder Singh Loomba, who was the first to fight for the right to wear a turban in Home Depot; and Avtar Singh Dhillon, who was the individual responsible for fighting for the right to wear a dastar in BC.

I also have Baljit Singh Ghuman, president of the Canadian Sikh Association, as well as Balkaranjeet Singh Gill, president of the Guru Nanak Mission in Brampton.

I ask everyone to welcome them today.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I would like to welcome the entire Canadian Sikh Association to the Legislature today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us as they will host an open house in committee room 2 at noon today. I encourage everyone to attend. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Energy, and it concerns the power plant documents.

Speaker, the minister has been hung out to dry by the Premier and his cabinet. He’s been abandoned by his caucus, forced to sit in this House every day and watch his fellow leadership competitors smirk as he pays the price for their sins. The minister wants to be leader of the Liberal Party, but surely he knows that that’s all over if this House finds him in contempt.

So I ask the minister, given that the Premier has turned his back on him, will he finally do what’s right and table the documents immediately?

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate the question. We listened to the communities in both Mississauga and Oakville. We cancelled the plants. We’re not proceeding with those.

There has been a lot of discussion about the documents, and I recall a couple of weeks ago there were submissions before you with respect to those documents. You gave a ruling. I indicated, as soon as you gave the ruling, that I would be complying with the ruling, and I have repeated that since then. I know there have been some discussions with the House leaders, but I was very clear on that. I thank the Speaker for the ruling and I thank my colleague opposite for the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the minister once again: Speaker, the minister was once the Attorney General of this province. He’s a lawyer by profession. He knows full well what the ramifications of being held in contempt are. He knows that he could lose his licence to practise law. He knows that he could be expelled from the Law Society of Upper Canada. He knows that he may be called before this House to deliver a humiliating apology—and for what, to protect the Liberal Party of Ontario, to take a bullet for Premier McGuinty?

I ask the minister, what is it going to take for him to release the documents? A raid by the OPP, a public shaming, being disbarred? Do it now, Minister: Release the documents and save yourself.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m enormously respectful of the Speaker and his authority in this place. You made a ruling in this place. I was here when you made the ruling. I indicated, in answer to questions in question period just after that, that I would be complying with the ruling, and that’s exactly what I’ll be doing. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the minister: Clearly, the minister has little understanding of the humiliating precedent he’s about to set. In case he’s unaware, I’d like to inform the minister that the Legislative Assembly Act empowers this House with many of the same powers of punishment as a court of law. I can assure the minister, as the opposition House leader, that we will be pursuing each and every one of those powers.

My question for the minister is this: Why? Why are you risking it all—your political career, your legal career, your integrity—for a party and a government that don’t even care about you?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Well, again, I thank the member for the question. As I recall the ruling, it had a number of terms in it and it had a date. The date was clear to all, and we’re not at the date. I quite understand and understood the terms of the ruling. I understand that there were discussions among the House leaders, as was suggested and encouraged in the ruling, and I also understand that there’s a date. I’ll be complying with the ruling.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the energy minister. Mr. Speaker, we know this is a difficult time for this minister. He’s been deserted in the trenches, left fighting the Premier’s battles all by himself. The Liberal Party has cut him loose. They know a fall guy when they see one. The minister’s entire professional career is on the line. For the sake of protecting the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, he’s risking it all: his legal career, his leadership bid and his credibility.

Throughout this process, the Premier and the Liberal Party have repeatedly put themselves ahead of Ontario. They’ve been concerned with nothing but their own selfish political fortunes.

I ask the minister, will you end this charade? Will you stand up for yourself? Will you stand up for Ontario and table those documents immediately today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answers, I was here when you made the ruling, and you heard lots of submissions and all the different issues and interests. They were presented to you and so I won’t go back into those. You made a ruling at the end of that, and in answer to questions which followed, I indicated that I was respectful of the ruling, thanked you for the ruling and that I would be complying with the ruling.

Part of that was—these are not your words; I’m paraphrasing—an encouragement to the House leaders to see if they could get together and have some discussions. I understand that they have had and are having some discussions. I’ll turn the supplementaries over to my colleague to deal with, but I simply indicate as I indicated before: I’ll be complying with the ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Again to the minister: Minister, it’s painful watching you struggle to defend that which you know is simply indefensible. I actually feel sorry for you.

Speaker, it’s unbecoming of a minister of the crown to rise in this House and defend the inexcusable actions of the Premier and the Liberal Party. Instead of focusing on his own leadership bid, the minister is busy defending the leadership of a Premier who has failed this province enormously. The minister surely feels he can do a better job. Why, then, is the minister sacrificing himself to protect a legacy of scandal, of waste and of self-opportunism?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, what’s painful is watching the opposition ignore your ruling. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, from your ruling of that day. What you did was you cited a passage from Speaker Milliken which you believed applied in this situation. I’d like to quote it for members: “It seems to me, that the issue before us is this: Is it possible to put into place a mechanism by which these documents could be made available to the House without compromising the security and confidentiality of the information they contain?

In other words, is it possible for the two sides, working together in the best interest of the Canadians they serve, to devise a means where both their concerns are met?”

That is exactly what’s happening, Mr. Speaker. The House leaders met last week for close to two hours. We will be meeting again today, and I have faith that the three of us, coming together, can find that spirit of co-operation that you called for in your ruling of 10 days ago.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: Right back to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. None of us on this side of the House blame the minister for being disappointed or angry. We understand how hurt he must be by the betrayal of his closest colleagues. It must be difficult to watch your entire political career unravel before your eyes. While the minister is here falling on the sword of the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, his cabinet colleagues, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs, are busy assembling their leadership campaigns.

We watch as the energy minister stands there struggling with the weight of two cancelled power plants on his shoulders. I ask him, why won’t you shrug? Why won’t you stop being complicit in the destruction of your own integrity?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, we have respect for your ruling on this side of the House, and I’d remind the honourable member—let me quote again from your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This is you speaking directly. “I, too, have immense faith in the abilities of the honourable members of this House. I know that a solution can be found to this impasse. All sides need to exercise sobriety in this. Political fortunes should not be the motive for eroding the supremacy of Parliament or ignoring the best interests of citizens in this province. Assiduous attention should be paid to dealing with matters such as this responsibly.”

Mr. Speaker, that is the approach that this side of the House is taking. I’m quite frankly disappointed that members of the opposition are not gathering behind their House leader to look for a responsible and co-operative way to balance the interests that are at play in the release of these documents.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Does the Premier believe that public disclosure is a threat to effective government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, Speaker, we do not. It may come as a surprise, but on this particular issue we in government and the opposition are in violent agreement. Speaker, we all stand four-square against the development of that particular gas plant in that community. It was a difficult decision to make, but I was heartened by the fact that we had the strong support of both opposition parties in this regard, and we both believed that, at the appropriate time, and certainly in keeping with your ruling, we should make all these documents public, Speaker. I think on this, as I say, we are in violent agreement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, nearly a decade ago the Premier said, “The Conservative government has treated public disclosure as a threat to effective government. We see it as exactly the opposite: a basic right and an essential means of ensuring that decisions are made in the public interest.” He then promised, “We will require that all future contracts signed by the government be subject to public scrutiny.” After nearly 10 years in office, does the Premier still believe that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, as I say, we respect the ruling that you’ve put forward. The question at hand is not about the release of the documents. All sides agree that the documents need to be released. But what we are pointing out, Mr. Speaker, is that on the advice of the Auditor General, based on the situation—the negotiations that are going on right now—we need to find a way to release those documents that does not jeopardize the position of the taxpayers of Ontario.

You have asked the House leaders to come together and find a reasonable way to balance these interests and achieve this goal. That is what’s happening. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we met for close to two hours last night, and I look forward to further discussion this afternoon, in keeping with the ruling that you put forward about a week ago.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, that government was elected on a promise of ending self-serving politics and opening government to the people. That’s what they were elected on. Now after almost a decade in office, we see a government that’s more interested in their own political survival than the public good and that’s scrambling to hide public information from the people who pay the bills.

When did the Premier stop believing that public disclosure was essential to making sure that decisions are made in the public interest?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again I remind the honourable member of what Jim McCarter, the Auditor General of Ontario and an officer of this Legislature, said on September 5 in public accounts: “My sense on the Oakville one”—that is the Oakville gas plant—“is that it could very well be that some of this information could be subject to client-solicitor privilege, or even if we were to get it, in my opinion, it could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position.” Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ontario’s Auditor General, Mr. McCarter. He is an officer of this Legislature.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether we will release these documents, but can we find a fashion to release them which protects the interests of the taxpayers of Ontario? We are standing up for those interests on this side of the House, and I think it’s time that the opposition stood up for them as well.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. This government has a problem, Speaker. It’s that the people who sent us here, the people who make this province work every day, see growing evidence that this government will say and do anything to hold on to power. They see little or nothing being done to take on the challenges that they are facing.

Will the Premier get his priorities right finally and stop focusing on the challenges that are facing the Liberal Party and start focusing on the challenges that are facing the people of this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, that’s exactly what we’re doing. The fact of the matter is, I’m a little bit bewildered, frankly, while my honourable colleague is raising an issue which is the subject of a very important and productive discussion among House leaders. Either she has confidence in her House leader to pursue those discussions, or she does not.

But I have confidence in her House leader. I have tremendous confidence in her House leader. He’s a good man from northern Ontario. He represents my mother’s old hometown, and he’s always welcome both in the north and over here, I must say, as well.

I do say, Speaker, I have confidence in the ability of the three House leaders to come together, work through this issue and do so in a way that is in full compliance with your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, only this Premier will be bewildered by why New Democrats work hard to get public disclosure for the people. The people who make this province work every day are very happy to do their part and to pay their fair share.

But here’s what they’re seeing: They’re seeing a government that promised transparency being called out for secrecy and contempt by the Environmental Commissioner; a government that promised to make life affordable signing secret deals that add millions and millions of dollars to their electricity bills; a government that warned that reckless Conservative legislation would cost millions when challenged in the courts now proposing the exact same kind of plan.

Why would the people believe what this government has to say when they themselves don’t believe it, Speaker?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Just to paraphrase what the Premier said, the honourable member can’t seem to take yes for an answer.

When it came to the Oakville power plant, let me share some quotes with her. The member for Toronto–Danforth told InsideHalton, “I don’t agree with the Oakville power plant, I don’t think it’s necessary.” The member from Beaches–East York on December 2 in this very Legislature said, “I’m glad that the people of Oakville came to their senses. I’m glad the people of Oakville hired Erin Brockovich and did all the things that they did in order to have this killed.”

The leader of the third party herself, October 18, 2010: “New Democrats actually have thought for a long time that the plant should never have been built and we’ve said so.”

Mr. Speaker, the plant has been cancelled. The documents will be released. All we are trying to figure out is a responsible way to do that to protect the best interests of the taxpayers of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I’m glad they understand over there the wrong-headedness of their move on that plant from day one. We knew it all along. We’ve said it all along.

After promising change a decade ago, Speaker, it’s clear that this government will say or do anything to hold on to power. The party that promised transparency is scrambling to hide public contracts. The party that warned against simplistic and unconstitutional Conservative plans is now adopting the very same kind of plans. The party that promised to protect the public interest is ignoring the challenges that face everyday people in this province. Why should anyone believe anything that this government has to say?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the member stands in her place and talks about the public interest. That is exactly what we are trying to defend on this side of the House. The simple fact is that there are sensitive negotiations that are going on concerning the Oakville plant. We have said that we will release the documents. We are trying to find a way to move forward which respects these sensitive negotiations and, through them, respects the rights of the taxpayers of Ontario.

This is about finding a solution to a complex problem. We respect the ruling that you put forward, and I call on the honourable members opposite to respect your ruling as well as we work towards a negotiated solution.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, the clock is ticking, ticking down on your credibility and your bid to become Liberal leader. Come Tuesday, you’ll officially become the victim of the Liberal team’s seat-saver decision to cancel the Oakville and the Mississauga gas plants. Without even thinking twice, the Premier threw you under the bus in an effort to buy an election that cost Ontarians hundreds of millions of dollars.

Minister, given that the Premier and all his advisers have turned against you, will you finally denounce the Liberal campaign team’s seat-saver program and release the power plant documents requested by this House today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Just a couple of things are clear with respect to the gas plants, and that is that all three parties have supported not proceeding with the plants—all three. Secondly, all three parties have advanced the public interest.

Third, I’ve been very clear with respect to the Speaker’s ruling. We’ll comply with the Speaker’s ruling, and part of the Speaker’s ruling was that there were discussions among House leaders, which I understand are still under way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Harris: Again to the Minister: Minister, the Liberal government record is one of mismanagement, incompetence and cover-up, whether it’s refusing to testify—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): While I will not ask to withdraw, I ask the member to be cautious of that. It was a generalization, but it does start to move down the ladder I don’t like. Carry on, please.

Mr. Michael Harris: Whether it’s refusing to testify on Ornge or withholding critical documents on eHealth and the Mississauga and Oakville power plants, the Liberal government has shown over and over again that it will stop at nothing to keep Ontarians in the dark. In the most stunning display of Liberal arrogance, the energy minister has made it very clear that he’s even willing to risk being found in contempt of this House to stop the release of documents relating to the Liberals’ seat-saver program.

Minister, enough is enough. It’s time to stop hiding. So I ask you: Will you release the power plant documents today and admit Ontarians should no longer have confidence in your scandal-plagued Liberal government?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: There are many, many quotes for both sides of the opposition. Here is what the member from Halton had to say in Hansard: “The people of Oakville have told you they don’t want the proposed gas-fired power plant ... and I agree with them.”

The member from Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant, in a letter to Minister Duguid: “The potential for future alternate generation in Nanticoke to replace that slated for the proposed and disputed Clarkson plant should receive ample consideration.”

The Leader of the Opposition told the Globe and Mail on September 25, 2011: “We’ve opposed these projects in Oakville and Mississauga.”

MPP Ted Chudleigh, the member from Halton, on October 19: “I was pleased when it was cancelled.”

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that all sides of the House have rejected this plant. All sides of the House are looking for a way to make the relevant documents available based on your ruling and based on the request from the estimates committee.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, a year after we learned the LCBO was overcharging consumers, we learned that not much has happened through this minister or his ministry. According to Global News, the LCBO asked a French brandy supplier to raise the price quote by $1.79 a bottle. They asked to pay more than what was asked, despite the fact that the LCBO was ordering 180 cases of Calvados.

You’d think that a monopoly buyer the size of the LCBO would use its size to lower the price, not to raise it. When will this government tell the LCBO to use it’s leverage to get a better deal for Ontarians and not for foreign liquor suppliers?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the Auditor General’s review. That was one among a number of recommendations, many of which we have acted on.

The member opposite will know that groups like MADD and others support a minimum pricing rule for very valid reasons, which is at the essence of how we establish liquor prices in this province. It’s complicated in that sense because those prices don’t get passed on to consumers. In fact, the way it is designed to work is to ensure that those who feel strongly in this province that there ought to be minimum pricing in order to prevent abuse of alcohol and so on—that’s been the model of pricing throughout the history of the LCBO.

We concur with the auditor’s advice to look at this carefully, because frankly, the additional revenue that could accrue to the province—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: We’re not talking here about minimum price for very cheap alcohol; this was $50.75 a bottle.

The Auditor General found that the LCBO does not negotiate discounts for high-volume purchases to reduce its costs. He found that the LCBO has no incentive to negotiate lower supplier costs. He found that it was often more interested in raising wholesale prices than in lowering them.

When will this government finally start taking the side of Ontario consumers instead of lining the pockets of foreign suppliers?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I’ve never heard of Calvados. It’s interesting the NDP have. I’d recommend you try Pelee Island wines.

After question period, I’ll explain to him how minimum prices don’t affect the high end; they affect the low end. I understand. But I would urge all Ontarians: Buy Niagara, buy Essex county, buy Prince Edward county—it’s a growing and booming industry that’s employing more Ontarians. I look forward to your supporting the initiatives we’re doing to build a better wine industry for all Ontarians with greater export potential.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am standing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —and members continue to ignore the fact that I’m standing. Thank you.

New question.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question this morning is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As this House is quite aware, there has been some discussion recently around the issue of interest arbitration. We’ve heard a variety of concerns expressed with respect to the proposed reforms to the arbitration system, and I understand that some of these concerns were originally raised by the province’s municipalities. In fact, I know it has been a long-standing issue. I can remember years ago being at a meeting with LUMCO, the large urban municipalities, and I remember Mayor McCallion’s passionate advocacy of reform of the arbitration system.

Municipalities have difficult decisions to make in their communities and are dependent on the government’s support on issues such as this. The back-and-forth on this issue must be both confusing and unsettling for them.

Speaker, can the minister please tell us what steps our government is taking to reassure Ontario’s municipalities that we hear their concerns and are committed to working with them in reforming the system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just say, we certainly value the relationships that we have with our municipal partners and would never ignore the advice of mayors, including and especially the mayor of Mississauga. We would certainly not.

Municipalities have specifically asked us to make changes to the arbitration system to help them control costs. In fact, the former president of AMO, Gary McNamara, said in August that he wanted to see all of us in this chamber work together on arbitration reform so that municipalities wouldn’t have to do it on their own.

The budget bill that we put forward, Mr. Speaker, included those reform provisions that would have reformed the arbitration system. Unfortunately, those provisions were taken out of the budget bill. We were aghast to see the Conservatives at the head of that parade. Now I understand there’s a private member’s bill that wants to reintroduce some of those provisions. We needed the support of the opposition in the first place to support those provisions.

The Premier has said that we will reintroduce those provisions, Mr. Speaker. We’ll continue to work with our municipalities to reform the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you, Minister. It’s good to hear that our government will continue to work with municipalities to help ease the burden caused by interest arbitration costs. I know many municipalities have expressed how much they value the supports our government has already provided and will be reassured to hear that we will continue to work with them on this matter.

However, we all know that the Ontario government is facing its own fiscal pressures, and we need the support of all our partners, including our municipal partners, to help balance the budget. Municipalities have suffered under previous governments that downloaded costs to municipalities. I know that my own municipality of Guelph certainly appreciates the fact that we are uploading court security costs.

Speaker, through you to the minister, how is our government providing support to Ontario municipalities so that they can navigate these challenging economic times?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is a really important question because it’s one that speaks to that very important relationship between the province and municipalities, the balance of costs that are shared and who takes responsibility for which pieces.

As recently as the AMO conference this summer, we recommitted to continuing the uploading process on schedule, Mr. Speaker, which will, by 2018, have a net benefit for our municipality of $1.5 billion a year. That means that municipalities have more room on their property tax income to deliver the services they need.

We would expect the support of the official opposition on that uploading, on the investments in roads and bridges, on the gas tax for transit, on the investments in affordable housing—that whole range of issues. We have not had that support, Mr. Speaker. We need that support. We’ll continue to work with municipalities, but it would be great if the members opposite, in both parties, would work with us on that as well.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Energy. It must feel like the vultures are circling you, just waiting to dive in and have at you. You can avoid all this, Minister. Just honour the committee’s request, honour the Speaker’s ruling, and quit hiding the documents.

You’re a lawyer. You know what’s coming next. Is your career really worth being the fall guy for the former energy minister’s deals, the fall guy for the Premier? It seems he has left you out of the succession plans anyway. He has left you out in the cold. You’re in this alone. They’ve abandoned you. End the pain today and turn over the documents.

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’ve thought of my colleagues as many things, but never as a vulture.

I appreciate the ruling that the Speaker made on this very important issue, and the ruling contained a number of terms. It contained terms with respect to documents relating to two gas plants, two gas plants that no party in this House believes should have gone ahead. So we’re all on the same page. We’re all on the same page with respect to the ruling, I believe, and part of the ruling was that there be meetings among the House leaders, and so I’ll be referring the second question to the government House leader to give us an update on the progress of those discussions. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, the minister has been cleaning up for his colleagues’ mistakes ever since becoming the Minister of Energy. Minister, your predecessor has left you on the hook for the failed Green Energy Act and the failed FIT programs. Just this morning, we learned that FIT is now costing the province $4 billion a year, and now your gang has left you on the hook for the billion-dollar, politically motivated seat-saver program.

Ask yourself, is your career worth being the fall guy for the Premier? The longer you wait, the worse it gets. You know what to do here, Minister. Turn the documents over today.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, I remind the member of your words to this Legislature: “I, too, have immense faith in the abilities of the honourable members of this House. I know that a solution can be found to this impasse. All sides need to exercise sobriety in this. Political fortunes should not be the motive for eroding the supremacy of Parliament or ignoring the best interests of citizens in this province.” I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable member heed your words as he goes forward.

The fact of the matter is that all sides of the House believe that neither of these plants should have gone forward, and the Minister of Energy has done an outstanding job in moving forward with this file. All that we are asking is that we find a way to balance the interests of taxpayers with the rights of the committees that have come forward and that we respect the ruling you put forward about a week ago. Again, Mr. Speaker, I call on members of the opposition to respect what you’ve said and to allow the process to continue.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Jonah Schein: My question is for the Premier. The government has taken another U-turn when it comes to the much-delayed Eglinton LRT. Today we learned that the LRT will not be operated by the TTC. They’ll be operated by a separate private company. Transit users fear that this will mean higher fares, poorer service and more difficulty in transferring between lines. Why is the government once again switching tracks on Toronto’s long-delayed transit plan?

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Far from switching tracks, Mr. Speaker, our goal has always been to have a seamless system along the Eglinton line, seamless from the transit rider’s perspective. So same fare, same transfer, seamless for commuters—that has always been our objective, Mr. Speaker, in building the Eglinton LRT. We’re focused on delivering that service to the people along that line and for the commuters who come into the city.

Toronto residents, I think, Mr. Speaker, are less concerned about whether it’s a Metrolinx employee or a TTC employee. They just want to make sure that the line is going to run. They want to make sure it’s delivered on time. They want to make sure that the service is reliable. So that’s what we’re going to deliver, Mr. Speaker. We’ve been working with the city of Toronto from the beginning of this project, and we will continue to work with the city of Toronto on this project.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jonah Schein: Back to the minister: The people of Toronto do not believe this government. The last thing that Toronto needs is a 407 of transit, with transit commuters joining drivers and paying more and more every day. City councillors, transit experts and the chair of the TTC all fear that this new plan will mean increased fares. It will mean reduced service levels and poorer conditions on transit lines, poorer coordination of transit lines. Why is the Premier supporting Metrolinx in a scheme that seems to put the needs and the interests of public-transit users last?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most surprising things about this debate, this transit debate in this Legislature over the last three years, has been that the NDP has consistently stood up and argued against public transit, consistently, starting with the previous leader, Howard Hampton, not supporting new subway cars; the air-rail link—consistently fighting against that investment in transit. I would have thought that the NDP would have been an advocate, would have been a champion for public transit. Instead, they pick away at the projects; they create indecision.

They create doubt in the public’s mind instead of saying, “This is a very good project. How can we work with you to make it better?”

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to work with the city of Toronto. This is a critical, critical line for the city of Toronto. The members from Toronto should know that, and they should be supporting us on this.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Joe Dickson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Over the summer, one of my constituents visited my office demanding to know more about what the government is doing to install sprinklers in retirement homes and long-term-care homes. Her mother is in an older retirement home that is not equipped with sprinklers.

This individual is actually an avid fan of question period and remembers watching a particular session in May when the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek stood in the House and said that the technical consultations now being conducted by the Office of the Fire Marshal are a waste of time.

Minister, can you please answer this question for me?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Ajax–Pickering for this important question. I have been waiting for an opportunity to clear the record on this issue. First, I appreciate the passion that the member of Hamilton East–Stoney Creek brings to this issue, as I believe everyone does in this Legislature. Unfortunately, the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is misrepresenting the legislative process, and has been—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I withdraw. “Inaccurately”—is that the best word? Okay. Inaccurately—the legislative process, and had he done his homework he would know that before you make a change to the fire code, a technical consultation must be conducted. Experts such as the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs support our technical consultations.

This government takes seniors’ safety very seriously. That’s why we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that, when we implement sprinklers in our older retirement homes and long-term-care homes, we do it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is again for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, it’s nice to know that this government is taking a responsible yet decisive approach to this very important issue. Clearly, much can be learned from this exercise to ensure that we implement the right policy. I think we all understand that a one-size-fits-all solution won’t work, as Ontario’s retirement and long-term-care homes can be found in urban and rural settings and are connected to different water services. All of these factors need to be considered, I’m sure.

But with that said, Minister, how long will the technical consultation take?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, we’ve expedited the technical consultation process by four months. The technical committee will deliver its initial recommendations this fall and has committed to making sure more retirement and long-term-care homes across the province are equipped with sprinklers. But we realize sprinklers are not the only solution. That’s why we’ve developed a multi-pronged approach to fire safety in homes for vulnerable Ontarians, by also focusing on training, inspection and automatic door closures.

Kevin Foster, president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, recently told my office he is pleased this issue is a priority and his organization is committed to expediting the work to provide workable recommendations.

We’ve taken strong actions to improve the safety of Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens, and I look forward to the recommendations that will be brought forward by the technical committee.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, it’s no secret that when Liberal Party campaign advisers like Greg Sorbara stressed the necessity of implementing the seat-saver program as a last-ditch effort for the Premier to hold on to power, they knew they needed a fall guy.

Everyone knows that the Premier will do anything and say anything to hold on to power. But what is most shocking is how the Premier was actually bold enough to choose you, Minister, as his fall guy—a fellow lawyer, and most of all, the single Liberal cabinet minister outside the inner circle who poses the biggest threat to assume the Premier’s role as leader of the Liberal Party.

Minister, why are you protecting the same Premier who defends an incompetent health minister to the bitter end but tries to tarnish your brand and leadership credibility?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You’d think by the tone of all the questions that they were actually insistent that the power plants remain in Oakville, but that would not be the case. And since that isn’t the case, then all parties would have been in exactly the same position, which is determining what happens next. The issue that we have been working on is how not only to reach a resolution but to find the right time to speak to the resolution. I spoke to the Mississauga resolution when it had been reached. The Oakville matter is still the subject of discussions. We have the Speaker’s ruling. We’ll be complying with the ruling and respect the terms of the ruling. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: The only ministers who look happy over there today are Minister Wynne, Minister Duncan and Minister Murray. They’re the only ones smiling today.

Back to the Minister of Energy: Minister, either you just don’t comprehend the gravity of the situation you’re in, or maybe you simply don’t care about transparency and accountability. Or perhaps you have simply taken the bait and the Premier’s office has actually convinced you that withholding documents is a smart decision.

Minister, don’t be fooled. Don’t think that the media training that you’ve received will protect you from being held in contempt. Being held in contempt is unfortunate for you, your career and your leadership ambitions. But you can change course if you just stop protecting Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal campaign team when you really want to be building yours. Minister, will you do the right thing? Will you release the documents today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Respect for the rulings made by the Speaker is paramount. That ruling had a number of terms, one of which was a date and another of which was a suggestion or encouragement that the House leaders get together. The government House leader has updated this House on those discussions. I understand they’re still ongoing, and I suspect and I hope that my friend opposite would want all members of the House to fully and completely respect the order made by the Speaker in all of its terms, not just in some of its terms—and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Health. Windsor Regional Hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit is one of the best in the province and it’s operating at almost full capacity, but the CEO of the hospital is warning that the NICU might be downgraded from a level 3 to a level 2, losing the ability to treat babies born before 32 weeks. This would force up to 60 babies and 300 pregnant women to London, Toronto or even Detroit for this kind of care.

My question is simple: Does the minister think that it’s right for new parents with fragile babies to be forced far away when they could be treated in their home hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I think the parents in this province want when they have a baby that needs intensive care is that that child receive the finest care possible. I think that commitment to quality is something that we agree on.

We also agree that care closest to home as possible is vitally important, and whenever possible, that care should be provided as close to home as possible. Sometimes babies are born who are so sick they need an intensity of care that cannot be provided at every hospital in this province. I can tell you that that is an issue I know is under discussion now. We will always make the decision based on what’s best for those little children.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: In 2009, the Minister of Finance said the following at a funding announcement at the Windsor NICU: “Windsor Regional will probably be the premier centre for this type of care in the province.”

That was a short four years ago. Why, only four years later, is this government cutting health care services for Windsor families and their vulnerable infants by downgrading the NICU to a level 2?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I actually have personal experience in a NICU. When my twin grandchildren were born, they spent some time there, as did I and as did their parents. I saw first-hand the quality of care that is provided in NICUs.

I can tell you that parents want their child to get the care they need when they are very, very vulnerable. We will always make decisions based on what’s best for those babies.

INVASIVE SPECIES

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I know our government is committed to fighting all invasive wildlife species across Ontario. We’ve made big strides over the past decade. Invasive species pose a huge threat to our lakes, ecosystems and industries, and I know that your ministry has recently implemented Ontario’s invasive species strategic plan that’s going to create some formal mechanism to collaborate with all levels of government and stakeholders, including First Nations.

Minister, what is the strategic plan to prevent and limit the impact of invasive species here in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks to the member for Willowdale for asking this very important question. Our government is very concerned about the threat of invasive species and remains committed to limiting their impacts on Ontario’s ecosystems.

Recently, we held a grand opening for the Invasive Species Centre in Sault Ste. Marie. Our colleague David Orazietti from Sault Ste. Marie attended on behalf of the province. This centre will be serving as a forum for the governments of Ontario and Canada to work collaboratively on management and research of invasive plants and aquatic species. Frankly, this is a historic moment for Ontario. This innovative facility is the first of its kind in Canada.

We’re also, of course, thrilled with the introduction of Ontario’s invasive species strategic plan. Our plan will build strong networks with conservation groups, including the federal government, our First Nation partners and neighbouring US states as well. Certainly, this is a comprehensive strategy. We’ll improve our ability to prevent, to detect and to respond to the threat of invasive species like the emerald ash borer and the Asian carp.

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, in particular I want to raise the issue of Asian carp. They are posing a real threat to our lakes, ecosystems and industry. They haven’t yet made their way into Ontario, but I can tell you, Minister, in Chicago and in the state of Michigan, they are having a real problem with Asian carp, and Asian carp are just nipping at the edges of our own Ontario Great Lakes here. Keeping that in mind, I’m starting to get questions from constituents, even in Willowdale, asking about this.

Minister, specifically, what are you doing to defend against the Asian carp threat in Ontario? Because I want to take the message back to my Willowdale constituents.

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. It’s important to everybody in the province of Ontario. Asian carp pose a significant threat to our province and to the many industries that depend on our Great Lakes, including the $230-million commercial fishing industry. That’s why we’ve recently joined the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, a collaborative effort, again, between our government, the federal government and US federal and state governments. Joining this committee will enable us to formally share information and employ new and innovative techniques aimed at preventing Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes system.

Also, in 2005, our government took action back then. We took a defensive stance on this issue by banning the possession of live Asian carp in Ontario. Since 2010, we have seized over 39,000 pounds of Asian carp that were destined for Ontario markets. So I can promise everyone in the Legislature and all Ontarians that we will continue to take strong action like this—

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is to the Minister of Energy this morning as well. I’m not exactly sure what the minister is doing. He was given a clear order a week ago by you, Mr. Speaker. He knows what he’s doing is wrong. He knows he’s been told to turn over the documents on the power plants. He knows that he’s doing the Premier’s dirty work right now. I don’t know why he isn’t turning the documents over now. It just doesn’t make any sense.

He knows that the cost is being borne by families in Ontario on cancelling those two power plants. We want to get to the bottom of this. The people of Ontario want to get to the bottom of this. Sadly for the minister, he’s become the sacrificial lamb for that floundering government over there. He’s turning on a spit, and not doing what needs to be done.

Speaker, can the minister tell the House when he’s going to stand up to the Premier, when he’s going to do the honourable thing and when he’s going to turn those documents over? He should do it today.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member’s question is quite simply wrong. You made a ruling a week ago. In that ruling you quoted Speaker Milliken, and I think it sums up your ruling in an excellent way. It says: “It seems to me, that the issue before us is this: Is it possible to put into place a mechanism by which these documents could be made available to the House without compromising the security and confidentiality of the information they contain? In other words, is it possible for the two sides, working together in the best interests of the Canadians they serve, to devise a means where both their concerns are met?”

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I’m disgusted with this line of questioning. You have asked for co-operation between the three House leaders, and I would hope that the Progressive Conservative Party would come to those discussions with the spirit of co-operation and openness that you have asked for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, it’s quite clear from where I sit that the people of Ontario are disgusted with this government—their arrogance when it comes to this issue.

You made a clear ruling that they should turn over the documents. Why are they stalling? Why are they waiting? What’s in those documents that they don’t want the people of Ontario to see?

This member over here, Rob Leone—his privilege was breached by the Minister of Energy; that was quite clear in your ruling last week. Why is the Minister of Energy not complying with this? Why is he falling on the sword for the Premier? Why is he carrying the load for the economic development minister who made all these mistakes two, three years ago? Why is Minister of Energy Bentley having to fall for this?

It doesn’t make any sense to me, Minister. You’re above this. Why don’t you turn over those documents today and do what’s right for yourself and for the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The member’s theatrics don’t make what he’s saying any more accurate. The simple fact of the matter is that the documents will be released. We have made that clear.

At the same time, the Auditor General of Ontario, an officer of this Legislature; you, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling; and opposition members in their discussions have certainly identified the fact that this is a complex situation and there are a number of competing interests. The question that we have right now is: How can we balance those interests to protect the interests of taxpayers, at the same time balancing them with the interests of the committee?

They are the discussions that we’re undergoing right now, Mr. Speaker. We had about a two-hour meeting last night between House leaders. I look forward to further discussions this afternoon, and I would hope that all opposition members will stand behind their House leaders as we find a co-operative way to address this situation.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question? The member from—Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and since you had problems identifying me, I had problems identifying you this morning.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s about time we smile in here a bit.

My question is to the Minister of Health. In my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, the Manitoulin Central Family Health Team in the town of Mindemoya—does anybody know where that is?—is working out of trailers and cramped spaces in the basement of their local hospital. After two years working on the capital expansion plan, and despite the best efforts of local stakeholders, the family health team has no response to their plan. So the hardship continues—working out of those trailers and cramped spaces.

Can the minister let my constituents know when this important project will finally be approved?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for raising this issue. We know how important family health teams are, Speaker; that’s why we’ve created 200 of them.

The people of Mindemoya deserve access to the best possible care. The staff at the family health team—the doctors and the other professionals there—also deserve to work in a building that reflects the importance of what they do.

I will undertake to take a look at this application and see where we are with it. Thanks again to the member for raising the issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Minister, for that response. The constituents from Manitoulin will look forward to getting that response going forward.

However, the patients of this family health team include some of the sickest and most vulnerable in Ontario, including many from First Nations, and there are many on Manitoulin Island. The minister can talk a good game about the importance of family health teams and health equity, but she needs to follow up this talk with action to help those that are most in need.

Will the minister do the right thing and accept the capital expansion plan or at least explain what barriers are preventing her from supporting it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said in the answer, I am more than happy to undertake to find out what’s happening in Mindemoya to the family health team there.

Family health teams are a very important innovation in primary care in this province. I’m very happy to see the members opposite—in fact, I would say that members from all sides of this House have approached me at various times looking for the creation of family health teams or expansion of family health teams because we know that they provide excellent care. They’re interdisciplinary teams, Speaker. They include nurses and nurse practitioners, social workers, dietitians and a range of health care professionals who provide holistic care for people in a way that I can say both patients and providers celebrate.

Thank you to the member, and I will undertake to look into this question.

YOUTH SERVICES

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. There are many issues facing this House and certainly Ontario.

One of the most significant ones in my riding, and I suspect in all ridings, is the issue of youth unemployment, youth violence and what it is we’re going to be able to do to expand some of the programs we’ve put in place. It’s interesting: One of the barriers, believe it or not, in my riding is a postal code. Because of a postal code, which averages out the income base in my riding, youth cannot access particular programs.

But I know the minister has put in place some really good programs. I know he’s looking at how he can expand those programs, and I think it’s something that all of us will be able to benefit from, in terms of what’s accessible next year for our communities.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for this very important question.

I’d like to take the opportunity to talk about a fantastic program that my ministry supports, which is the youth in policing initiative. It was referenced and in fact expanded in the recently announced government youth action p