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

October 31, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-31 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 31 October 2002 Jeudi 31 octobre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SLOT MACHINES

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

SLOT MACHINES

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

SLOT MACHINES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

DIWALI

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

HALL OF DISTINCTION

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

TERRY HARKINS

RACIAL PROFILING

ONTARIO VOLUNTEER AWARDS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(INSTALLATIONS INDUSTRIELLES)

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN

DE SOUTIEN AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

NO FREEZING IN THE DARK ACT

(ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE MAINTIEN

DE L'APPROVISIONNEMENT

EN ÉLECTRICITÉ ET EN GAZ

(MODIFICATION DE LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO)

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

HYDRO ONE

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO ONE

FIREFIGHTERS

NATURAL GAS RATES

ELDER ABUSE

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

HYDRO RATES

FLU IMMUNIZATION

SCHOOL BOARDS

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

RACIAL PROFILING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

VISITOR

PETITIONS

WATER EXTRACTION

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LONG-TERM CARE

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

Thursday 31 October 2002 Jeudi 31 octobre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SLOT MACHINES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Eves government should hold a public inquiry into the granting of

up to 800 slot machines to Picov Downs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Kwinter: I come to this issue with some experience. In 1986, as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I initiated the racetrack

assistance program. The reason for that was that racetracks were in big trouble. They were having difficulties because of lotteries, charity bingos and the aging population of their normal client

base, and they found that it was getting more and more difficult to function. This race track assistance program allowed them to do some marketing and to upgrade their facilities so that in fact

they could attract a new clientele. That was very, very successful, and as a result of that particular initiative, I have maintained a consistent relationship with the industry, because I felt that

I had a stake in turning it around.

In 1998, the government decided to address a further problem that the racing industry was having. The problem was they were now competing with the mega-casinos

in Niagara, Windsor and Rama. What was happening was that the racing industry, which used to be the only legalized gambling in Ontario, was now finding it was more and more difficult for them to

compete. So the racetrack slots initiative was put into place in 1998. The rationale was quite simple: there was gambling already taking place there. It would not upset, if you want to call it, the

gambling ecology of the area, in that you would not be injecting a new gambling facility; it would just be enhancing the gambling facility that was there. That was good for everybody: the

municipality who got a share of the profits; the racetrack industry, because they got money that allowed them to enhance their purses and their physical facilities; and of course, the big winner

was the provincial government, who got a great deal of revenue from that.

There was a program put in place, and the 16 racetracks in Ontario were all allotted slot machines based on their performance and the wagering that took place.

It ranged from a high for Woodbine Entertainment, which did $569 million-plus in wagering last year, getting 1,700 slot machines, to the very smallest slot machine operators in the province, ones

like Woodstock, Dresden, Clinton, Hanover, which each got 100. In between there were varying other amounts but that was the range: 100 to the smallest and 1,700 to the largest. That was the program

and it continued until the year 2000.

At that point, there was a feeling that maybe the gambling had reaching the saturation point in Ontario, so Management

Board issued a directive on a fact sheet. It says: "On April 19, 2000, this government announced our three-year plan for gaming in Ontario. As part of that plan, we announced a three-year pause in

the expansion of new charity casinos, new commercial casinos, and charity casinos at racetracks in the province." It went on to say that there was "a pause in implementation of slot machines at

racetracks as of March 31, 2000, until the impact of this program can be thoroughly assessed," and it also says that "16 racetracks met our requirements to host a slot machine facility. Nine

facilities have already opened and the remaining seven to open at a later date."

All of these facilities were opened without a referendum. They were all done by ministerial zoning orders, and I have no

problem with that. I'm just saying that that was the way it worked and that is why Woodbine, which is in the city of Toronto, has slot machines even though the city of Toronto held a referendum

that turned down gambling for Toronto. But because of the special nature of racetracks they were able to allot the slot machines based on these ministerial zoning orders. That is what has

happened.

The interesting thing about it is that when that particular Management Board fact sheet and announcement was made, the

Chair of Management Board was interviewed by Richard Brennan on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, and he said: "Management Board Chairman Chris Hodgson announced a three-year moratorium yesterday on all

types of legalized gaming expansion, suggesting the province has nearly reached the saturation point." The announcement "covers the period from July 1 this year to March 31, 2003....

"There are 8,812 slot machines in 16 racetracks, leaving two -- one in Ajax and the other in Belleville -- that will not

be getting them for three years.

"Hodgson also said the province will not entertain any requests from racetracks until April, 2003, to become full-blown

charity casinos....

"Ron Barbaro, chair and chief executive officer of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, said research found 83% of

adult Ontario residents have access to legal gaming.

"Barbaro said the research ... consultants showed the only spot left in the province where gaming is hard to find is in eastern Ontario."

Subsequent to that Management Board directive there was a change. There was an amendment that was made -- it was not announced, but it was made -- that

racetracks were reduced from a three-year moratorium to a two-year moratorium. The interesting thing about it is: why would it be necessary to change a moratorium on allocating slot machines to

racetracks from three years to two years when the only two racetracks in Ontario that do not have slot machines were deemed to be unsuitable candidates by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp?

That's the first question: why was it done when the only possible beneficiary was this tiny, tiny racetrack? And when I tell you about "tiny," I just want to

give you an example. As part of this initiative there is money to come back into the racing commission for its operation, and this is done by monthly track fees. Woodbine Entertainment pays, on a

monthly basis, $237,239 for their monthly track fees. Picov Downs, which barely is even a racetrack -- it doesn't even have a full oval and it only does $281,136 a year -- their monthly track fee

is $117. There are people in Toronto and Ontario -- we hear about it every day -- whose hydro bills are more than that every month.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Every week.

Mr Kwinter: Every week. Here is a racetrack that is paying $117 a month in track fees. As I say, it's a joke.

Why was the moratorium lifted? The Attorney General, in discussing the issue of the moratorium, said, "I've since been advised otherwise. Indeed, it was a

two-year moratorium.... I would refer him in particular to a letter dated July 21, 2000, in which Jane Holmes clearly indicates that it is a two-year pause. That's straight from the horse's mouth."

That was on September 30.

On October 10, 10 days later, the Attorney General, referencing the same letter's claim, "confirmed that the expansion of slot machines at racetracks was not

covered by the three-year moratorium." He went on to say, "That moratorium was not to apply to slot machines at racetracks." It's simply not true.

I've read to you the directive from Management Board. I will tell you about other documents that have been put out. Nobody, other than the Attorney General, is

questioning that it was a two-year moratorium. I would suggest that, when he says it comes "straight from the horse's mouth," his statement doesn't come from the horse's mouth but rather from the

other end of the horse.

When we get to the situation of the end of this moratorium, which was in March, we had a letter sent to the operators of Picov Downs, and it spells out some very

troubling procedural events that I will be talking about later. But there is no question in my mind that there are enough questions out there that absolutely must be addressed by a public inquiry,

because without that we're going to have a situation where the process is being perverted, where there are severe questions of ethics. I think it's important we support this motion.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The Minister of Enterprise, Innovation and --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. I always have trouble with that one, Minister.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I have trouble with it from time to time. It's the great new Ministry of

Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation.

I speak at this time of course in my primary duty as the representative of the people of Whitby-Ajax in the great region of Durham, a region about which the

member opposite quite clearly knows very little and cares very little.

He and his Liberal colleagues care very little about anything except their friends in the city of Toronto, in particular the member opposite who just spoke and

his friends in the horse racing industry who have been his friends, he says, since 1986. Good friends and financial supporters they are of the member opposite.

He doesn't care about Durham region and he doesn't care about economic development in Durham region. No, he says all the other racetracks in Ontario should have

slot machines, and 14 out of 16 do. He started that process and he's proud of it. But not Durham region; no, not the 500,000 people of Durham region. They should go to his friends' racetracks in

Toronto. The people of Durham region should be denied by the Liberal Party, by the member opposite who just spoke, that sort of entertainment opportunity, he says.

Why does he say that? Is this about integrity or ethics? He says that. He knows that's not so, even though he didn't say this. He knows this matter was raised by

me with the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. He knows the Integrity Commissioner was satisfied with the way it was handled. He knows that, but he doesn't say that.

It's not about ethics or integrity -- perhaps his ethics and his integrity, given his financial backers, and we have the list here. We know who's been backing

him financially in the horse racing industry since -- what was it the member opposite said? -- 1986. We know that. So it's not about ethics.

Is it about contributions to political candidates? No, it's not about that. We have a system for that in Ontario. We have a disclosure system in leadership

campaigns. That's how the member opposite knows where the financial support came from, because all of us obeyed the law. We support the law. We disclosed who has given us financial support during

the course of our various political campaigns in the province. So it's not about that.

It's not about ethics and it's not about contributions to political candidates. Is it about the number of slot machines?

No, it's not about that either, because he knows that the decision, as the Attorney General has explained in this place, was up to a certain number and that that decision will be made in the normal

course, following the normal processes, by the normal commissions. He knows that too. So it's not about that.

So what is this about today? Is it about finances? He says he has some experience in these matters. The window to the truth is that, I think when he says he has

some experience, yes, he does. His experience was against Durham region. His experience was to give nothing to Durham region. Even today, what does he call our racetrack? He calls it "barely a

racetrack." That's what the member opposite says. He demeans Durham region. He demeans our facility.

What's wrong with Durham region participating in this entertainment business in Ontario? Why is the member opposite so keen on denying the people of Durham

region this $5-million investment opportunity? Why is he against the council of the town of Ajax? Why is he, the member opposite from Wilson, against the regional municipality support? Why is he

against the people of the town of Ajax, who in a referendum voted to support this? Why is he against all of those things?

If we look at the record, when he was a minister in government from 1985 to 1990, the Liberals ignored Durham region: no expansion of highways; no MRI machine;

no university certainly, which we now will have in Durham region, the new University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Durham region matters to the Conservative government of Ontario, first led

by Premier Harris, now led by Premier Eves.

Is it any wonder that every member from Durham region in this place is a Progressive Conservative? There's not a Liberal elected there. The member opposite -- I

thank him for this -- is ensuring there will not be a Liberal elected there for a long time, because he goes out of his way to advocate for his friends, his financial supporters, not looking at the

interests of the province of Ontario, oh no, looking at the narrow interests of his supporters in his part of the racing industry in his region of Ontario.

The Liberals are against Durham region. They've ignored Durham region. They have not reached out to support a business enterprise, an entertainment location,

that is supported unanimously across the region.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Unanimously.

Hon Mr Flaherty: It is unanimously when you have the town council, when you have the economic development people, when you have the people

themselves voting in a referendum.

The member from Rosedale is against it too. Am I surprised? No. What does the member for Rosedale care about Durham region? He's another Liberal who thinks the

sun rises and sets on their ridings in the city of Toronto, like the member from Wilson. So we have two of them now this morning going against the people of Durham region.

It'll be a long time before a Liberal gets elected in Durham region. I invite the member opposite from Wilson, if he doesn't think so, to come on out to Durham

region and talk about this. Come on out and meet with the people in Ajax. Come on out to Harwood Avenue and Westney Road. Come out and talk to the people and see if you maintain that view you seem

to have that you know what's good for economic development in Durham region better than the people of Durham region do.

As I say, this isn't about conflict of interest. That's been dealt with by the process we have, which the Liberals don't have in Ottawa. We have a meaningful

process here, but his friends in Ottawa don't have that kind of meaningful process. We have an empowered Integrity Commissioner in Ontario who reports to this Legislature. It's not about our system

of disclosure of political contributions, which works and works well in the province and which is the right system to have. It's not about the number of slot machines. What it is about, quite

frankly, is a member of this House demeaning himself and demeaning this House by advocating for special interests in his particular region and ignoring the needs of others in this province, in

particular, the people I'm proud to represent from Durham region.

This is a good project for Durham region. I know the member opposite is against it. I know the Liberals are against it. I'm for it. I'm going to continue to

fight for it. It's good for my people in Durham region. It's good for our economy. We're just as important as your special interests in Toronto.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Kwinter: I have to refrain from laughing out loud at this minister's protestations about what was going on.

Just to put the record straight, OHRIA, the Ontario Horse Racing Industry Association, is opposed to this. It's not a Toronto-centred organization. It represents

the 18 racetracks in Ontario. They have said that the allocation of up to 800 slot machines is inexcusable; it is grossly disproportionate. They have said that.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Who controls the racing days? Your friends. You know that.

Mr Kwinter: You appoint the racing commission. What are you talking about?

Hon Mr Flaherty: You're just defending your friends. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Kwinter: Let's just talk about what is happening here. The member talks about this great support in Durham. He doesn't say there was a

referendum to bring a charity casino to Durham that was defeated. Another referendum was introduced to put in racetrack slot machines, and it was passed by 54%. This has absolutely nothing to do

with the people of Durham. It has to do with the process; it has to do with what has happened.

The minister says this was approved by the Integrity Commissioner. He certainly must have that in writing; I can't believe it was done orally. Would he please

table that clearance right now? Would he show me the document that says the Integrity Commissioner heard you make an approach and say, "Somebody who's got a matter before cabinet is planning to

give me an $80,000 contribution. Is it all right if I accept it and still be in cabinet?"

Hon Mr Flaherty: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Kwinter: You should be ashamed of yourself. Where is the document that says --

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'm not listening to this. You should be ashamed of yourself, Monte. You're a better man than that.

The Acting Speaker: Order, Minister. The member for York Centre has the floor, and only the member for York Centre. The member for York Centre

will speak through the Speaker.

Mr Kwinter: Again I challenge the member: if he has a clearance from the Integrity Commissioner -- I don't deny it -- let him show it to me. Let

him show me in writing that he has that clearance.

Now, the Attorney General consistently says that everything is done by the book. The facts are that the letter that was sent on April 10 by Tim Hudak to Norm

Picov was unique. Of the 16 tracks that received slot machines, not one received the letter from the minister; they received the letter from the chairman and chief executive officer of the Ontario

Lottery and Gaming Corporation. Under the process -- and the Attorney General keeps insisting regularly: "This is an arm's-length process; it has nothing to do with us. You will deal with the

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. They will make the recommendation. They will make all the arrangements."

So what happens? The minister says, "I am writing to advise you that the OLGC" -- the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation -- "has been directed to begin

discussions with you for the establishment of a slot machine facility, with up to 800 slot machines, at Picov Downs." There goes the arm's-length, independent gaming corporation. They have been

directed by cabinet to do it.

What as the result of that? Ron Barbaro, the chairman, refused to send the letter. The deputy minister refused to sign off. So what do we have in the dying

moments of the former government? The day before the power shifted to Ernie Eves, we have the minister, a strong supporter of Mr Flaherty, putting together a proposal, sending it out and saying,

"You're going to get 800 slot machines."

Hon Mr Flaherty: You should be ashamed of yourself. You should put a bag over your head.

The Acting Speaker: The minister will withdraw that. And if he continues, he will be named.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I withdraw.

Mr Kwinter: I have a question. If there is a possibility -- and I can tell you the Attorney General has said on four separate occasions, "We may

not give them any. They may not get any." When you talk about doing a disservice to the people of Durham, their member stood up at a press conference and said, "This has been approved. We're going

to get up to 800 slot machines." The council was delighted. Everybody was happy. This was a great day for Durham. Now the Attorney General stands up and says on a regular basis, "We may not give

them any. We may not give them any slot machines."

Interjection.

Mr Kwinter: Talk about how you can go back to Durham -- I'd be happy to go back to Durham and defend my position. But if they're going to get no

slot machines, you're going to have a problem going back to Durham. They've already been dancing in the streets; they've been told they're going to get them.

Why do we have this situation with the Attorney General saying they may get one, they may get two, they may get four or they may get 10? It doesn't make any

sense. If you can't give them 100 --

Hon Mr Flaherty: OHRIA says 200.

Mr Kwinter: I'm saying the number is between zero --

Hon Mr Flaherty: Your friends say 200.

Mr Kwinter: You give them none or you give them between 100 and 800. I have no quarrel with that. But don't muddy the waters by saying, "We

may give them none, we may give them two, we may give them four, we may give them six." You can't give them six slot machines. What are they going to do with them? Mr Picov will set them up in his

living room and invite his friends to come in and play the slot machines. You can't do that. You've got to give them a minimum --

Hon Mr Flaherty: You just get right down there. Why don't you get down on all fours? What a low-life.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Speaker, that's out of order.

I just want to give you some comments. I want to quote Mr Picov.

Interjection.

Mr Kwinter: One has nothing to do with the other, and you know it.

Mr Picov stated, when asked about giving the $80,000 to Mr Flaherty, "One has nothing to do with the other. I am not political. We're not political at all. My

sole motivation is that I would like to see a Premier from the Durham region." If you say that, why, after he gave Mr Flaherty's campaign an $80,000 non-tax-receipted contribution, did he then give

$10,000 to Ernie Eves? If he was really planning to make sure that Mr Flaherty became the first Premier from Durham region, why did he give Mr Eves $10,000? It doesn't make any sense.

I want to quote from an

article in the Toronto Sun, not exactly a supporter of the Liberal Party and basically the house organ of the Conservative Party. Here

is a quote from Hartley Steward: "Only a fool would believe our politicians don't understand their part of the deal when they take a $100,000 donation from someone running a business in their

jurisdiction. That donor, some day, is going to show up on your doorstep with a favour to ask." That's from Hartley Steward of the Toronto Sun.

When we talk about problems, here's an

article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on September 28, 2002, written by Murray Campbell. He starts off talking

about the Conservative Party: "It was a bad week for them -- a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. The bad news got magnified and the good news got buried.... For Mr Flaherty, the problem

was he received $80,000 in donations from a racetrack operator looking to win government approval for lucrative slot machines."

Mr Flaherty keeps trying to portray that I have something against the people of Durham. I have nothing against the people of Durham. I wish them well. If they

want to get slot machines, do it, but don't do it through the back door. They had a referendum for a charity casino, and it was turned down. They then thought, "Do you know what? We can actually

put slot machines in through the racetrack route. Let's do that. We don't have to do anything." In theory, they didn't even have to have a referendum. But they did have one, and it passed by 54%, a

majority without question, but it's only a yes or no sort of thing so it's not resounding, unanimous consent. So we have a situation where what they couldn't get through the front door they're

trying to get through the back door.

The question it also begs is why a decision that was finally reviewed and approved by cabinet last December, almost 11 months ago, has yet to be implemented.

Why didn't you give them the slot machines? There is obviously a problem.

If any of you watched Fourth Reading with Susanna Kelley when she had leaked cabinet documents and she talked about the Premier, and she said that at a cabinet

meeting the Premier said to Flaherty, Janet Ecker and Tim Hudak -- this is her report, her words, not mine -- he had Janet Ecker in tears and he said, "I am not an effing crook." When Steve Paikin

said to her, "Did he actually say effing?" she said, "No, he said the whole word." So what we have is a situation where the Premier is obviously disturbed by this thing. There's obviously a problem

with this, because why hasn't it been implemented when it's been kicking around for over a year? Why was all of this done without any regard to what is the intent of this program?

Again, I haven't been trying to attack Mr Flaherty personally. That's not my style, and you know that. I am trying to deal with a situation that has to be

addressed. One of the interesting things about it, in an interview with Robert Benzie in the National Post, Mr Flaherty said he finds it unsavoury that I would be even asking these questions. Talk

about unsavoury -- the aroma that is emanating from this particular proposal is really unsavoury and it requires answers. I wish the people of Durham well. I wish they would have -- go out and give

them 800 slot machines. Don't pervert the system, don't distort what is happening, because if they were to get 800 slot machines, then the people in all of the other tracks that only have 100 would

say, "This is ridiculous. Why would you possibly give them 800 when I do 200 times more volume and I only have 100? Why is this happening? Why would this possibly happen? Why would a" --

Interjection.

Mr Kwinter: What is happening is that you're trying to get it to the point where the tail is wagging the horse. You're trying to say, give us

the 800 slot machines -- and Mr Picov's son is on the record as saying, "If we can't get 800 slot machines, it's not viable." The whole situation -- it is not meant to work that way. It is not

meant that the slot machines go in to a track that does $280,000 a year in wagering and turn it into a colossal gambling centre. It's not meant to do that. It's meant to take a racetrack that is

viable now but enhance its viability, and do it in such a way that it does that.

It would seem to me that we have enough questions being asked that have no answers. There are no answers. The only answer we get is Mr Flaherty attacking me

personally, saying, why would I do this? I should be ashamed of myself. I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed to raise this question, because I think the people of Ontario deserve an answer. They

deserve an answer as to why this could happen. Why does someone think that they can buy influence? Christina Blizzard, in an

article the other day when she went through this -- and she again is not

exactly a strong Liberal -- referred to it as an "astounding" contribution.

We're all politicians, every one of us. I can tell you that if somebody came up to me and said, "I would like to give a $80,000 non-receiptable contribution,"

immediately my antenna would go up and I'd say, "Wow, hold off a minute. This doesn't smell right." I'm telling you, that's a lot of money.

Again, I challenge the member who claims that he -- and I'm not disputing his claim. He's an honourable man. I have no reason to contradict his claim. But I

would say this to him: he could have quietened this whole issue down very, very quickly by saying, "Mr Kwinter, here is a letter from the Integrity Commissioner telling me that what I did was

perfectly in accordance with the rules."

Interjection.

Mr Kwinter: He claims that he went to the Integrity Commissioner and got approval. I have no reason to doubt that. All I'm saying is, show me

the letter that says it happened.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to give the bulk of the time to our deputy leader, but I just want to jump in this debate for a

couple of reasons.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here. In the last provincial leadership race, the Tories raised a total of $8 million. There was $8 million solicited

from all kinds of contributors around the province of Ontario, from individuals and businesses, in order to run their leadership campaign -- $8 million. I will argue that's more than any one of our

parties will spend in the next provincial election to elect a government. So I would argue that there's a problem internally within the process of how you elect a leader. To me, it's unbelievable

that you're allowed to raise $8 million for a leadership campaign. Our total budget in the NDP for the next provincial election is going to be about $2.5 million or $3.5 million, tops.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: It tells me there's a problem.

So when the member from the Liberal Party raises the issue and says, "Well, it raises a couple of questions when an individual gives an $80,000 non-receiptable

donation and doesn't expect anything back" -- I don't think people give that kind of money. I'm not arguing that Mr Flaherty knowingly did anything wrong. He's an honourable member. I quite like

the man. What I'm saying is that the public perception out there, and that's really what it comes down to, is that something stinks in Denmark. I can't blame people in the media or the member for

raising this issue. I don't think that you can blame the public for saying, "Well, is it conceivable that a person who gives an $80,000 contribution is not going to want something in return?" I

think that's a pretty interesting --

Mr Mazzilli: What do the unions want from you guys?

Mr Bisson: He says, "What about the unions?" I don't know too many of them that gave us $80,000. But the point I make is that there's a

problem in the process.

I just say to the members who are here and the media who may be watching that in the entire federal leadership process, because of the rules that we put in

place, no NDP candidate in a federal leadership race is allowed to raise more than $700,000. There's a reason we do that as a party. One is that we don't have the ability to fundraise like you guys

have. People think that if they give a lot of money to a leadership race, somehow they're going to get something back from the government. But we want to make sure that the perception within the

New Democratic Party is that nobody's buying large favours, so there's a limit to how much money a candidate can raise. It's a $700,000 limit for any one candidate.

I think what we need to take a look at are two issues: that there should be rules around how much money you can raise for a leadership; and certainly I would

argue that we need to do something around campaign finance reform when it comes to overall general elections as well, because I think it does leave the public with a bad taste in their mouth.

I would just say this is an interesting thing because in this particular case it was a person who owns a racetrack who was giving the donation. I'm a bit of a

horse racer myself, I have to admit. My wife and I go out on Friday and Saturday nights to the off-track betting place, and we like to bet on a number of tracks around the province of Ontario.

Unfortunately, we can't bet trotters up north because of the monopoly the guy in Sudbury has, but that's another story. We like to put bets at Woodbine and Fort Erie and when the thoroughbreds are

racing. As a matter of fact, the Breeders' Cup was on just last weekend. I lost my shirt as usual. I didn't win one bet. The only two that came in were the two low exactors I had bet, but that's

another story.

I have to say that I've been around betting for a while, and I just think it's interesting -- here's a guy who owns a racetrack. Let me see if I have this

straight. He bets $80,000 for Flaherty to win, and his odds of winning that leadership race were probably around 20:1, right? Then he says, "I'm going to cover my win bet by making a place bet on

Mr Eves," by putting up $10,000 on what was probably a 2:1 odds favourite. You're losing money on the place bet. What was the matter with the guy? You have to really wonder -- 10,000 bucks on a

place bet. I just want to say to the man who owns Picov Downs, if that's how you bet horses, man, I don't want to bet with you because you'd lose a lot of money. You should have done it the other

way around. You should have put $10,000 on Flaherty to place and put $80,000 to win on Mr Eves. I can tell you, that ticket would have paid a lot of money.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): I want to start out first of all by commending the member for bringing forward this particular issue.

I may not like the manner in which it was brought forward, but I cast no reasons and no aspersions with regard to that. I very much thank him, though, for allowing this issue on the floor this

morning and I welcome the opportunity to speak to it.

I want to speak to it from the position of a backbench member from Ottawa who was an owner and a breeder of harness horses for 20 years, a lover of

thoroughbreds -- and Volponi, I might just tell the member opposite, was an Italian horse. He was a natural pick. I don't understand -- $89 at the track -- more here.

Mr Bisson: But you don't make a place bet. You know that; you put it on show only.

Mr Guzzo: As a lawyer, I didn't make place bets. You have to win -- there are only winners and losers. As a practising lawyer I have in the

past acted for racetracks, for horsemen. I acted for unions: the Horseman's Association -- think about that, my NDP friend. That's hard to accept, I'm sure.

I think if the Leader of the Opposition were here this morning in the House, I'd have to admit that -- because he practised in Ottawa the same time that I did

-- I have an association, because for some reason I defended a number of bookmakers over the years. I make that abundantly clear.

It is from that perspective that I draw my knowledge and my background on the horse racing industry. When I say that I welcome this opportunity, it is because

what we as a government have done since 1995 is one of the positive, strong points of what we have been able to accomplish. I, for one, am extremely proud of it.

I have to acknowledge in my professional life, being aware of the racetrack assistance program, which the honourable member from York Centre was instrumental

in setting up -- indeed, it helped some ailing tracks, but I disagree with him when he gave us the reason for the difficulties of the tracks back in 1986 and again in 1995.

The fact of the matter is, sir, that the racetracks are in trouble because they were the worst-run businesses in Ontario. They were the worst-run businesses in

Ontario. Notwithstanding what we have done, and the success of certain tracks, some more than others, they are still not service-oriented and they are not treating the public and the customer the

way the customer deserves to be treated. It's for that reason that they are running into difficulties.

We did what we had to do for one reason -- you heard it from your member, Mr Phillips: the issue was jobs, jobs, jobs in 1995, and we went the route that we

went for the purpose of saving the jobs.

Mr Agostino: For your friends.

Mr Guzzo: Maybe for the friends, but let me explain something to you. It wasn't to save the jobs at the tracks --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa West-Nepean has the floor. He doesn't need all this assistance.

Mr Guzzo: It wasn't for the purpose of saving the jobs at the tracks -- they were important, and they are very important jobs. When I look at

the racetrack in Ottawa, some of the finest young doctors and lawyers in our city worked at that track in the dining room and punching tickets in order to put themselves through medical school and

law school, and I'm sure the same is true in a lot of the communities -- and we should be proud of it. The purpose of what we were doing was directed to the rural area and the jobs in the rural

areas -- jobs on breeding farms, jobs at training tracks and, indeed, jobs on the back stretch at the different racetracks -- people who may have had difficulty in securing employment and staying

off welfare if this industry had been allowed to fail.

When you look at the tracks, they had a track record. The track in Ottawa was 35 years old and had been successful -- some years more successful than others, I

suspect -- and it was getting more difficult because of external pressures to keep going. It was the logical thing to do, as opposed to setting up charity casinos around the province, to help

maintain the jobs in the agricultural sector and at the tracks by placing the machines there.

I wish the member from Thorold -- formerly Thorold, now Niagara Centre -- were here because he was on the committee when we started and stopped with certain

types of machines and changed backthe one program and then moved to the racetracks. My argument always was that the illegal betting that was going on and is still going on -- I bring the paper from

this morning and I look at the NFL line with the point spread. All summer long you have baseball, all winter long you have hockey, in the fall you've got the CFL and the NFL, all printed for the

benefit of the illegal bookmaking establishment.

The betting that goes on is excessive as we sit here. Everyone knows it. Everybody appreciates it. We have done a little to put a dent in it. We eliminated a

number of grey machines. When we were on that committee and traveling in the north, we visited five or six cities. In four of the cities where we stayed to have hearings, they had grey machines in

the bar, where Mr Kormos and I would go for a couple of Cokes on occasion. The bars had these grey machines in every city we went to, even up in the north.

I used to suggest to you that you could go within 10 blocks of this building and find 100 grey machines. In Ottawa you could find 500 within 10 blocks of

Parliament Hill. They're gone. Those machines were not regulated. Those machines were not operating at a 90% return to the people who were playing them the way the ones at Rideau Carleton Raceway

are today or the ones at other racetracks are being regulated and maintained today. The public has been well served. This government is proud of what we have been able to do.

You make one good point: the operation of the Ontario Racing Commission is paramount and should be the first stop on this trek, not the lottery corporation. I

have to tell you that I don't have the faith in the Ontario Racing Commission that I have in the lottery corporation. I am satisfied the Ontario Lottery Corp will protect this process -- I know it

will -- or this government will be in some difficulty. The racing commission is the first step.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale -- or Toronto-Danforth, I'm sorry.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): You don't want to mix up Mr Smitherman and me, let me tell you.

This is a very serious matter before us this morning. I agree that it's tempting to get up and tell our own individual racing stories. When I was the Minister

of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I would go to the Queen's Plate and Mr Kwinter would always be there. I assume he's still going. I have to say that, coming from Labrador where there weren't

even any horses, it was quite an interesting journey for me when I became the minister and was suddenly responsible for gambling in this province, including horse racing. I had the pleasure of

working directly with people like Tom Joy and Peter Hardy, both of whom are deceased now. They were just incredible, wonderful human beings who really cared about the industry and worked hard to

keep the industry viable and to make sure the people they employed continued to have jobs.

I went through a period of working with the horse racing industry, because they were losing ground. That's how slot machines started to come into the tracks,

to all the other forms of entertainment out there. We put together a committee, which Peter Hardy chaired, and we were able to come up with some strategies to help the industry.

I know Mr Kwinter before me had come up with some solutions as well, which we carried on. Some interesting things were done at that time. I also had the

dubious pleasure of bringing in the first commercial casino in Ontario, in Windsor. Let me tell you that there was quite a struggle then across the province because of the recession and

cross-border issues. A lot of communities wanted casinos. I had the responsibility of bringing in the first one, in Windsor. Most of the people there wanted it. Now there is one in Niagara Falls,

even though these guys who were sitting over here at the time were horrified that it would even be considered.

However, I learned some lessons, and this is where I want to get very serious about the resolution before us today from Mr Kwinter, which I support.

In the gambling industry, the potential for even perceived wrongdoing is very high. When I was put in the position of having to be responsible for bringing a

casino to Ontario, my God, did I work hard to make sure I set up a system that was at arm's length from me as minister.

I know the opposition at the time tried a couple of times to question me about our process and couldn't find anything on me, because I made darned sure there

wasn't, that there was absolutely no connection between me except for setting up a system that was fair and above-board and transparent for the selection of the private sector company that was

going to come in and run that casino.

I set up a team of bureaucrats, run by my deputy minister at the time, to do all those negotiations. We came up with a very rigid list of standards and rules

that applied to everybody who had applied to run that casino. I remember somebody once telling me that one of the people who was bidding to run that casino just wanted to shake my hand. They didn't

want to give me any money because there was no way I was going to take any money in any way from these guys. He was going to be at an event in the Lieutenant Governor's suite, and if I were there,

he'd just like to say hello. I ended up not even going to that event. I wanted not only to not be implicated in any way with being influenced by any of those bidders, but I also didn't even want

any perceptions, so that I could honestly say I had nothing to do with that, never met them, never dealt with them, that it was all transparent and was all at arm's length.

I find this issue before us today very serious in that whether or not there's influence-peddling here, there's a perception that needs to be dealt with. Dare I

bring up poor former Premier Glen Clark. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would prefer I didn't, but I'm going to bring him up because look at what happened to him. He's been acquitted of all

wrongdoing, but it's been stated by the judge that there was some bad judgment involved. For heaven's sake, look what he was dragged through for having a neighbour who had applied for a casino, who

spent a few thousand dollars on some free labour on fixing up a deck.

Here in Ontario we have a government that just held a leadership race where we have this particular Picov Downs giving Mr Flaherty $60,000.

Mr Kwinter: It's $80,000.

Ms Churley: It's $80,000. I've got $60,000, and how much to Mr Eves?

Mr Smitherman: It's $10,000.

Ms Churley: It's $10,000. I've got my numbers wrong here. It's $80,000 to one of the leadership candidates and $10,000 to another.

Whether there was any wrongdoing here or not, a public inquiry could tell us that. There sure is a perception of some influence-peddling happening here. I

would think the government would want to be part of trying to get to the bottom of what happened if they're proclaiming their innocence in this.

Here's what happened. Here's the issue. On April 12, the last working day before Ontario Conservative control was to pass from Mike Harris to somebody else,

Ontario's then Minister of Education quietly announced that up to 800 slot machines would be installed at Picov Downs, which falls within her riding. Then the donations happened, and reportedly the

Picov Downs proposal was pushed through cabinet in one of the body's last meetings before Ernie Eves was to take over. It makes me think of the $10-million gift to the sports teams just at the last

minute. There's something about this that doesn't smell right.

I think, though, that this is a bigger issue -- much bigger, as my colleague Mr Bisson outlined. I would like to extend this to an overall inquiry as to the

whole way we allow donations to be given, particularly in leadership campaigns, as a result of the $8 million that was given throughout the previous Tory leadership campaign, because it's a lot of

money; it's a whole lot of money to have to raise. It shuts a lot people out, number one, because they can't raise that kind of money. I just want to give you some other examples that my leader, Mr

Hampton, raised in the House as well that never really went anywhere.

Brascan and its subsidiaries gave $150,000 to Mr Eves. If you look at that figure, they stand to make a lot more than Picov does. There are Brascan shell

companies on the Eves list, including Noranda, $25,000, and Trilon, $25,000. If you look at the list of some of those donations -- and I particularly bring up the ones related to energy because of

the privatization agenda of the government -- there is a connection here. Again I say that whether or not there is influence-peddling, the perception is that there is. I think that when any

companies are giving donations of this size and there is something going on within their industry, something very large like, in this case, the privatization of Hydro -- that amount of money was

being given to leadership hopefuls during a time when the whole deregulation and privatization of Hydro was in some disarray, with many, many concerns about Hydro One, which Ernie Eves eventually,

through a lot of pressure, mostly backed down on, but the privatization of generation is still going ahead. I have real concerns about that kind of perceived or real influence-peddling that may

have gone on. I would like to extend this to a whole review, an investigation of the transparency and the limits that should be put on how much money can be given to somebody who is not just

running for the leadership of a party but indeed will become the next Premier and will have a lot of power.

We've got some of the same things going on in Ottawa right now with the Liberals. We've got Paul Martin, who is running

to be leader there. He is not disclosing his donors; he doesn't have to now, because he's out of cabinet. We know he's making pots and pots of money. He has not spoken out on Kyoto yet. Jack

Layton, who is running for the federal NDP leadership, has released all his donors to date, mostly individuals. But Paul Martin has not spoken out about Kyoto yet. You've got to wonder

why.

So I think we need a thorough investigation into these leadership --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for York Centre has two minutes to reply.

Mr Kwinter: I want to thank all the participants: the members for Whitby-Ajax, Ottawa West-Nepean, Timmins-James Bay and Toronto-Danforth.

I particularly want to thank the member for Ottawa West-Nepean and the member for Toronto-Danforth, because they bring some experience to this debate. One was

the minister who actually succeeded me as minister, and the other is someone who, by his own account, has had some great interest in and exposure to this industry.

I just want to make it clear in my final minute and 23 seconds that I am totally supportive of slot machines at racetracks. I am totally supportive of the

people of Durham getting as many slot machines as they can get. That is not the issue. I am not in any way opposed to that.

What I am opposed to is the perception that there was a payment made. A decision that was before cabinet was accepted by a minister who sat at that table, and

a decision was made for an inordinate number of slot machines. The industry has said it is absurd that someone who does $280,000 in betting a year is given up to 800 slot machines where other

racetracks that are doing $65 million and $80 million are getting 100. How could that happen? What is the justification for it, unless there was something untoward? Why did the person responsible,

the chairman of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp, decline to send the letter and say that the case had not been made? Why did the minister, for the first time ever, send that letter when he's

never done it before? Those are the questions that have to be addressed.

Why, as reported on TVO, was the Premier so upset? There's obviously a problem here, and the fact that this decision has not been carried out over --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time for debating this ballot item.

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

Mr Cordiano moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 158,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for York South-Weston has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I don't believe there has been a more important time to make the amendments I'm calling for in the

Consumer Reporting Act. We have largely become a credit-dependent society. Our economy is being driven by consumers who are, to a large extent, dependent on credit on a daily basis. More and more,

people turn to credit cards. They're using credit on an ongoing, revolving basis. I don't think there's a person in this Legislature who doesn't have a credit card or some form of credit card. So I

believe that each and every one of us has a stake in the amendments I'm calling for to this piece of legislation.

What happens when a consumer applies for credit? A credit-granting agency, such as a bank or a credit card company, turns to a credit-reporting agency for

what's called a credit report. The credit report is a detailed history of that person's credit, and it will determine creditworthiness.

Credit-reporting agencies gather information from credit granters -- the banks, credit card companies etc. They accumulate this information on each and every

consumer who applies for credit. They organize the individual information and maintain it. Based on someone's credit history, the credit-reporting agency will determine what's called a credit

score, and that credit score is all-important, because it determines creditworthiness.

If the information about that individual, the credit history, is inaccurate in some way, it could have devastating results, an adverse effect in terms of

getting that first loan, getting a loan for a car or getting a student loan or a mortgage. In fact, it can have an impact on tenants who apply for a place to live, rental accommodation from a

landlord. Many, many tenants have been affected by this.

I would go one step further. Even prospective employers are demanding credit history information. I have the case of a gentleman who was affected by this,

which I'll get into later. But that can have an impact on someone's ability to get a job.

As you can see, this is tremendously important to individuals, consumers right across this province. And errors do occur. The anecdotal evidence is

overwhelming, and I can give you some further evidence.

In 1991, the CBC's Marketplace show asked 100 people to request their personal credit reports. They found 47 had errors. Thirteen of those had significant

enough errors to prevent them from getting any kind of credit. More recently, in 1997, US Public Interest Research Group conducted a similar study and found that 29% of credit reports they received

contained significant errors that could also result in the denial of credit. These are significant cases of situations where consumers are denied credit. What does the current legislation say on

what recourse the consumer has when an error occurs in his or her credit history? The current legislation, the Consumer Reporting Act, places the onus entirely on the individual to correct his or

her credit history if an error is found. The consumer has to provide the credit reporting agency with written documentation. So a consumer has to look back for cheque stubs or any kind of document

to prove that, for example, a loan was paid off. Dealing with credit granters can be very difficult and trying if you've lost that cheque stub or there is no documentation. Sometimes this can go

back years.

Again, under the existing legislation, written notice has to be provided by the consumer to the credit reporting agency. Under the Consumer Reporting Act, the

only requirement placed on the reporting agencies, however, is that the agencies must use their best efforts to correct mistakes within "a reasonable time." So there is no additional onus on the

credit reporting agencies. In fact, there are stories of these reporting agencies not following up on requests made by consumers. They use their best efforts to try and correct this information,

but it's not being done.

To support what I'm saying, I want to look at the year 2001. The registrar is the regulator of the credit reporting agencies, and each reporting agency has to

be registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services. There are 58 credit reporting agencies currently registered. This is very interesting. In 2001, 2,174 complaints were made

regarding credit reporting agencies and erroneous information. Under the act, the registrar can conduct audits and investigations. However, in the past three years the registrar has conducted only

one audit of any company, which is amazing after 2,174 complaints in 2001.

As we can see, the existing act does not really deal with consumer complaints in a reasonably timely fashion because the entire onus is placed on the

individual. Working with credit granters is not an easy thing for an individual to do, to extract information, to have that information documented. The onus is too great. In a moment, I will get to

other jurisdictions that have brought their legislation up to date, placing the onus back on the credit reporting agencies.

My bill calls for three things, really. It increases the accountability of credit reporting agencies to disclose information promptly and to correct any

erroneous information. They have to do so within a 30-day period, and they have to notify consumers in writing that there is something wrong with the information.

Secondly, it provides consumers with better access to information that could be used against them in their credit history. It also details how a credit score

is arrived at. So there has got to be information provided. I am also calling for a toll-free number to be instituted by these credit reporting agencies and to have trained personnel on staff to

explain how they arrive at a credit score. This is all being done in the US. Some of the same companies that operate in the US also operate in Canada.

Also, the main point of this legislation is to ensure that consumers are not penalized every time they apply for credit. When a credit check is conducted on a

consumer, the very fact that they are applying for credit works against them under the current legislation. It acts as a penalizer if you simply ask for credit. Shopping around for credit these

days -- and everyone shops around for the best price -- should not result in the consumer being penalized or having a downgrade in their creditworthiness. That should not be the case. The amendment

to the act I'm calling for does away with that, prohibits that from actually going on a credit score.

As you can see, there are three things that are called for in the amendment I'm bringing forward that would go a long way to dealing with consumer complaints.

It would bring our legislation in Ontario up to date with other jurisdictions, the US being one. The UK is also moving in that direction.

I say to members, this is important and worthy legislation that we can all support, and I'll speak to some other examples later in my time.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate with respect to this Bill 158. Protecting personal

information is a priority for the Ernie Eves government and we are more than willing to give full consideration to any proposal to increase the control individuals have over their personal

information, including their credit information.

While we support some of the policy intentions in Bill 158, there is some concern that a balance has not been achieved between the ability of the consumer

reporting agency and credit providers to continue functioning and the potential benefits provided to consumers.

One key concern is that this bill has been drafted without any input and consultation with the key groups that will be directly affected by it, such as

businesses, the credit industry and other users of consumer reports -- a full discussion. These organizations have significant concerns regarding some of these proposals and could provide advice on

ways to address the needs identified by the member while at the same time not causing a great deal of harm to their businesses. As well, we would like to hear how consumers and consumer

organizations view this bill.

The Ministry of Consumer and Business Services would be pleased to work with the member and stakeholders to consult on the bill and improve upon it in a way

that maintains important consumer protection features but in a manner that is more balanced with the needs of business and consumers. We believe the bill would benefit from consultations with the

organizations it will impact directly, as well as representative consumer groups.

The bill could be improved in a number of ways. For example, the obligations of organizations to disclose information to consumers could be more focused on

instances where consumers indicate a need or a desire to see this information.

Let's be correct in what we're dealing with here. With consumer reporting, what we're talking about is a consumer report. That means a written, oral or other

communication by a consumer reporting agency of credit information or personal information, or both, returning to a consumer for consideration in connection with the purpose set out in clause

8(1)(d).

The purpose of getting that information under the act is that a consumer report is given to a person it has reason to believe intends to use the information

with respect to the extension of credit to or for the purchase or the collection of a debt. It also deals with entering into or the renewal of a tenancy agreement, information for employment

purposes, the underwriting of insurance involving a consumer, dealing with eligibility under a statute for a consumer, and direct business information.

There's some merit in this bill in terms of what he wants to amend. I think it's sound business practice, and I'd be surprised if any consumer agency didn't do

this. He wants a consumer reporting agency not to provide a consumer report to any person without first obtaining -- they need to get the person's name, address and telephone number and

confirmation that the information is sought for a purpose permitted under this

section and will be used for no other purpose.

The key thing here is that obviously you need to have the name, address and telephone number of the person requesting information from the consumer reporting

agency. The more fundamental purpose, and I think this has to be toughened up somewhat, is confirmation saying, "We want it for this purpose under clause 8(1)(d)." They need to know exactly what

the purpose is, so it's caught under that section. It needs to be a little bit tougher with respect to making sure that consumer report is caught under that section. I don't think the member would

disagree with that, and I'd be surprised if he did.

One area I'm a little concerned with is that the member wants to repeal subsection 12(2) of the act. I don't know why he wants to do this. Maybe he can respond

why he wants to repeal this subsection, which reads, "A consumer reporting agency shall withhold from the disclosures required by subsection (1) any medical information obtained with the written

consent of the consumer which the consumer's own physician has specifically requested in writing be withheld from the consumer in his or her own best interest." I'd like to know why the member

wants that

section repealed. It's a fundamental

section with respect to the relationship between a patient and their physician.

There are other areas with respect to the area he's talking about, correcting errors. That's a good area, because I think what he's trying to do here is put a

timeline on the consumer agency, where there is an error in the consumer report, to make any corrections. He's got a 30-day timeline to investigate the dispute, notify the consumer and correct that

information. I think what he's proposing under subsection 13(1) has some merit.

In conclusion, I want to say that certainly the Consumer Reporting Act needs to be reviewed in certain areas, and I think the member is trying to do that. But

we have to have a proper balance in that exercise with respect to the reporting agencies, the consumer and those affected by that information, ie, landlords, credit information areas, insurance

companies etc.

Mr Cordiano: I listened to the member, and I'm not quite sure about part of what he said with respect to particular sections of the act. But

let me say I'm willing to examine this and talk about where this might go in the future. Obviously, committee would be one good place to deal with those questions.

Let me just continue with what I was saying in regard to why we need this legislation. The US federal government passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act in July

1999, which deals precisely with what I've been calling for in the amendments to this act. We're behind other jurisdictions when it comes to ensuring that consumers are protected and that

information is properly maintained by credit-reporting agencies. In fact, in January 2000, three of the biggest credit-reporting agencies were fined by the US government for failing to maintain a

toll-free number, which is a requirement of the US federal legislation.

Recently in California, the Senate passed legislation requiring the disclosure of credit scores. In the United Kingdom, the Office of Fair Trading recommended

that creditors be required to tell customers or consumers that credit scoring is part of the decision-making process. As we can see, other jurisdictions are moving in regard to this and are making

changes to update legislation, because they recognize this is crucial to the functioning of the economy. It's important for consumers, and it's also important for our economy to move forward, since

we depend on credit.

The member who spoke previously said there wasn't consultation with stakeholder groups. I have letters of support from the stakeholder groups that I want to

quote from, some of whom have suggested that all members support this legislation, as it is significant and moves in the direction they want to go. As soon as I find what I'm looking for on my

desk, I'll quote those.

Let me say further that the amendments we're asking for are not that onerous with regard to what's required of the credit-reporting agencies. It will certainly

cause them some additional costs; there's no doubt about that. Maintaining a toll-free number will cost some additional dollars. Updating their files will cost some additional dollars. But these

credit-reporting agencies are also making huge sums of money by passing along information about their consumers in other forms. You can actually apply to have your own credit report done on the

Internet, with a cost attached to it. There are all sorts of fees being charged to consumers for information.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, in their letter to me regarding the amendments to the act, says, "The importance of

consumer protections with respect to credit reporting cannot be underestimated. We have become an extremely credit-dependent society.... It can determine our ability to get bank accounts, debit

cards, mortgages, credit cards, and even employment and rental accommodation. Many Ontario consumers are suffering as a result of abuses that this bill would address. It is for these reasons that

we support these important amendments found in Bill 158.

"We strongly urge all members of the Legislature to support Bill 158 to ensure that an improved Consumer Reporting Act is adopted."

I also have a letter of support from the Consumers' Association of Canada. They say, "We believe that the Consumer Reporting Amendment Act works to address

some of the concerns we have regarding the current credit reporting industry, and would urge all members of the Legislature to support Bill 158, in order to improve the existing Consumer Reporting

Act."

So we have support from these consumer groups, and it's very significant.

I also have a number of examples of what's wrong with the current situation. This gentleman has a bad mark on his credit report because of the responsibilities

he had under the Family Responsibility Office. In July 1997 there was an outstanding balance of $52,000, which was paid by this individual. There was also an order from the Superior Court of

Justice, dated June 2001, which stated that no monies are owed by this gentleman.

A company called Equifax has been consulted many times. The latest correspondence from Equifax to this gentleman's lawyer, who has intervened on his behalf,

stated that they need an instruction from the group that lodged the collection notice. Anyway, it goes on. The court, as I say, supports the gentleman. His ex-wife also supports the fact that this

debt was paid off. However, this bad mark stays on his credit report. It is there, and it resulted in his being prevented from getting employment successfully as well as from accessing rental

accommodation. As you can see, this has a detrimental impact on individuals.

I am suggesting today that members support this legislation. It would go a long way to ensuring that consumers are protected and that what's in their files is

current data. It puts the onus back on reporting agencies to update their files. It also calls on these agencies to better explain how credit scores are arrived at, maintaining a toll-free number

with personnel available to explain that. As I say, it would cause these firms to be more accountable for their practices. It would also eliminate the possibility for credit-reporting agencies to

use the mere fact that someone is applying for credit and a credit report is being conducted on that individual as a bad mark against them.

I think these are essential amendments, which are required in today's fast-driven economy that is so dependent on credit. All of us who depend on credit -- we

all use our credit cards extensively; we use them for a number of purposes, for ID. I think we're just bringing Ontario up to modern standards. I would urge all members to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm pleased to make some comments on behalf of my caucus this morning, because I believe we all share

the same point of view on this particular private member's bill before us today.

I'd like to congratulate Mr Cordiano for bringing it forward. I'm going to tell him at the outset that I have some

criticisms of it, and I'll outline those -- I don't think it goes far enough given today's climate -- but I also understand why he limited it to what is in the bill today. He's trying to be

reasonable, knowing what might possibly get passed here. Some of the stuff I am going to suggest should be in the bill, I'm sure he thought of, but given that the Americans have already done

something similar in another jurisdiction, I understand that he was cautious in his approach today and tried to find the balance Mr Tascona referred to in expressing concerns about the bill because

there wasn't enough balance in it.

I would say everybody knows by now that as we use more and more credit cards, and this has become a credit card society, many consumers have very real

problems. There isn't a balance now, which is what Mr Cordiano is trying to correct. They have real problems with credit reporting agencies. The whole system gives pretty much all the power to

businesses and creditors, and leaves the consumer with very little power at all. He is trying to correct that.

The reason I am glad the bill is before us, as well, is that it gives me an opportunity to talk about consumer protection and the lack thereof in other areas

under this government. I know you're not trying to address those today, but we're talking about consumer protection. The government recently brought forward its own legislation and didn't do these,

in my view, very simple amendments that would go some way to giving relief to consumers. By now we have pointed out so many holes in the government's new consumer legislation that it's hardly

surprising Mr Cordiano found yet another hole to plug, which is what he is attempting to do today.

The bill attempts to address the serious problem of credit reporting agency practices, but in some way, because I know he's trying to be cautious in his

approach, it takes a rather complicated route. The problem is that businesses check your credit rating many times without cause. We're finding that more and more. You're not a customer and you're

not applying for anything, but they're still out checking your credit rating.

I don't think they should have the power to do that. Instead of just saying that a consumer report can't include the number of inquiries, why not just say that

businesses can't check without reason? Again, I know you would have preferred to have that in there, I would think, but you knew that wouldn't go anywhere. I think that's where we should be

heading, that they can't check without reason, pure and simple, or better yet, don't include the number of times your credit rating has been checked on your history at all.

The bill goes in the right direction and I would urge full support for it today. There should be committee hearings so

we can have amendments. As you know, with private member's bills, I think we all accept that we don't have the infrastructure behind us that the government does to write the bills. Good ideas come

out and then we need to take it to a real committee, not committee of the whole House where it dies, which the government tends to do now. It sounds as though they'll vote for something, so it'll

look good on paper, but then they refuse to send it to a real standing committee and they send it to committee of the whole House, which the public mostly doesn't understand, for heaven's sakes,

with good reason, and there it dies. It never sees the light of day again.

The component of the bill dealing with disclosing what's going on, with actions against consumers and requests for reports to the consumer, is a really

important positive step, but as I said, we really need to fix the whole system. I want to say, Mr Cordiano, I know that's not what you're trying to do today, but I think it's important to point out

that as to the system, we need to examine the whole thing and fix it to create more of a balance so that the consumer gets a fair shake.

I want to talk more about consumer protection and the fact that the government brought in a new bill, and as I said, there are so many holes in it. I want to

come back to the scamming hydro marketers, and again, you're not trying to deal with that today but we have to use it as another example of some of the big, big problems in our consumer legislation

that the government didn't fix in its bill.

The legislation the government brought forward will not protect hydro consumers from the scams, the forgery and the high-pressure sales tactics that we hear

are still going on out there, which the Conservative government let loose on consumers in this province. We're all hearing more and more about these.

For well over a year, the government allowed pushy energy marketers to invade your doorstep and sell you so-called electricity deals. What they didn't tell you

was that the prices they quoted didn't nearly include all the costs. Many people, not knowing what to do, who didn't read the fine print as many people don't in these long contracts -- yes, we all

should. When the minister was asked about that yesterday, he said, "Well, they should have read the fine print." That's his answer to people who are going to have to turn out their lights or not

eat, to make those choices. What they didn't tell you was that they didn't include all the costs. Many signed deals with these marketers that will cost them big money. They're finding that out now.

The average consumer who signed with a marketer will likely lose at least $150 in the first year alone that they didn't have to lose.

Many consumers who signed these so-called deals will also have to pay any rebate they receive from the government to the private marketers. That was what Mr

Baird, the energy minister, referred to yesterday, that it's too bad they didn't read the fine print. They are not going to get to keep the rebate they are going to get back from the government,

the election ploy of giving people a few dollars to try to deal with this incredible scandal the government has brought upon itself.

In the fine print of these deals, not pointed out by these scam artists at the door, they were going to be able to keep any rebate. It's just absolutely

shocking. Talk about lack of consumer protection. Even an economist who actually worked on setting up the deregulation system admitted he couldn't understand the sales pitch that was being made to

him at the door, yet over 25% of Ontarians have signed these deals. If one of the economists who helped set up the deal couldn't understand what he was being told, we know there's a real consumer

issue here.

Howard Hampton, the NDP leader, has been very clear in this House that consumers should be allowed to rip up these deals, and we have put forward to the

government a private member's bill, I believe it was, or a suggestion -- I think it was a private member's bill -- but the government says no, it's going to make them stick. Here it is. It's Mr

Hampton's private member's bill, Bill 73. It would allow consumers to get out of these deals. I would ask the government, when we're talking about consumer protection today, to revisit that, given

that we now know they cannot even get their rebates, and allow them to rip up these deals. The bill is currently before the Legislature but it hasn't been allowed to go forward. Bill 73 would also

put a stop to door-to-door marketing and would allow consumers to rip up contracts they didn't want to get into in the first place, because there was such confusion out there to consumers about

what was going to be happening with hydro bills.

We don't have a lot of opportunity to talk about consumer protection and this bill gives us an opportunity to talk in general about what's happening to

consumers here under this government. The bill the government brought forward, the consumer protection bill, and the bill the Minister of Finance unveiled yesterday -- she didn't make a statement

in the House but I believe a member asked a question so she could highlight it -- would not, either of the bills, protect the consumers of financial services who entrusted and subsequently lost

their savings, often their retirement savings.

I have an elderly gentleman in my riding who lost his retirement savings completely. He is spending a lot of time being frustrated with me, and I understand

that. I have tried through various means -- I talked to the former Minister of Finance and the parliamentary assistant at the time and set up a meeting and letters went back and forth -- to put his

case forward, but under the existing laws and now the new law that was brought in, there's nothing that can be done for this gentleman. It's one of the saddest things to see. He has lost all his

life savings and there is no legislation before us, including the legislation the minister brought in yesterday, that will get him back his money or prevent this happening to others out there in

the future. The government's so-called investor protection legislation just doesn't deal in a comprehensive way with the issues that are facing us today.

Again I want to point out, so people understand and know, that there are alternatives. We can improve this legislation.

The leader of the NDP, Howard Hampton, has a "No Enrons in Ontario" document, which outlines the kinds of protections consumers should get from the corporate scamming that is endangering Ontario

investors. This package includes things like toughening up -- really toughening up -- the rules and regulations governing public auditors to ensure that investors are really protected and that

arm's-length audits tell the truth about how a company is doing; giving the Ontario Securities Commission more power to clamp down on securities fraud; increasing corporate board members' legal

liability for misleading statements; forcing mutual fund holding companies to have independent boards for each fund. It creates a real public oversight board for accounting, which would be

responsible for licensing, investigations and disciplinary activity of the public accounting profession and would create a new standard-setting body that would not be associated with existing

organizations representing the accounting profession, which is a real problem. You've got to separate the two.

It would forbid public accounting firms from providing non-auditing services in conjunction with auditing services, ban inside directors from serving on audit

committees, and establish a two-year cooling-off period before an employee of an audit firm can join a client firm. These are no-brainers given what we saw happen in the US with Enron and other big

corporations and what we actually are seeing here in Ontario too.

It would require firms to rotate or change their auditing firms every five years in order to ensure greater accountability.

There are many more aspects to this No Enrons bill, which I urge all members to look at. I urge the Minister of Finance to take a look at it and indeed be

willing to improve upon the bill that she introduced yesterday, which will not do what she said she wants it to do, and that is to protect these smaller investors and their life savings.

Coming back directly to Mr Cordiano's bill today on consumer protection, as I said earlier, I believe it should and could go further. I think the problems are

very far-reaching now and there is a lack of balance between the business community and consumers. The consumers are on the wrong end of the stick.

I would say to government members, I spoke about the fact that I don't think the bill goes far enough, and I can tell you there are a lot of consumers who

think that as well. But Mr Cordiano has brought forward a bill today which I believe he wrote in the belief that Tory members could support it, because he understands that should he have become

more radical in his approach and done some of the things that we really need to do to protect consumers, it wouldn't get anywhere; it wouldn't see the light of day.

Although in some ways there are complications in what's before you today that I think need to be fixed, the government should agree to pass the bill today --

after all, they're already doing it in the US and other jurisdictions, so we're not reinventing the wheel here -- take it to committee hearings, deal with some of the issues and some of the

problems, and make any necessary amendments to strengthen it.

Congratulations, Mr Cordiano, for bringing this forward.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to be here this morning to make a few comments on Bill 158,

An Act to amend the Consumer

Reporting Act. Of course, it's brought forward by Mr Cordiano, the member from York South-Weston.

Protecting personal information is a priority of the Ernie Eves government. Whenever we talk about personal information, I think everyone always looks back to

what we see in movies and a lot of times in the media of Big Brother and Uncle Sam and all these phrases that the public gets to acknowledge when they think of how much information the government

has on you. It's always interesting when personal information comes before this House.

However, we are more than willing to give full consideration to any proposal to increase the control that individuals have over their personal information,

including credit card information. That's something that people in our province, as we move forward with a system where more and more business is done by credit card, by the use of high technology,

are concerned more and more about: just what type of information is released.

I have to say right up front that I will be supporting this bill. I believe it has a lot of merit and I congratulate the member for bringing it forth. But

while we support some of the policy intentions in Bill 158, there is some concern that a balance has not been achieved between the ability of consumer reporting agencies and the creditors that are

providers to continuing functions and the potential benefits provided to our consumers.

One key concern we have is that the bill has been drafted without an awful lot of input and consultation with key groups that will be directly affected by it,

such as businesses, the credit card industry and other users of consumer reports. When any type of private member's bill passes through this Legislature, I consider it essential that as many of the

stakeholders as possible are notified and consulted with. I know Mr Cordiano has certainly met with some, but I don't know how complete that really is to this date. These organizations have

significant concerns regarding some of the proposals in the bill and could provide advice on ways to address the needs identified by Bill 158. At the same time, they would not be causing a great

deal of harm to their businesses. As well, we would like to hear how consumers and consumer organizations actually view this bill.

I know Mr Hudak, the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, and Mr Tascona, the parliamentary assistant, would be pleased to work with Mr Cordiano and

stakeholders to consult on the bill and improve upon it in a way that maintains important consumer protection features, but in a manner that is more balanced with the needs of businesses and

consumers.

The bill could be improved in a number of ways. As just one example, because I'm going to let Mr Galt have some time

here this morning as well, the obligations of organizations to disclose information to consumers could be more focused on instances where consumers indicate a need or desire to actually see the

information.

Again, it's a bill that has a lot of merit. I don't know how all of our caucus will be voting on it. I will be supporting it myself. Any time we can make an

attempt at helping consumers in dealing with personal information, I think we as a government and all members of this Legislature have to take a serious look at it.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words today, and I'll let Mr Galt have the rest of my time.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'm delighted to rise and speak in support of the private member's bill of my colleague Mr Joe Cordiano, the

member from York South-Weston. At the outset, I'd like to say that I very willingly support the bill and I would urge the government members to support it as well.

It does two main things, and it goes a long way to complementing the existing credit reporting act. One is to increase the accountability of credit reporting

agencies with respect to disclosing information. One very important aspect of that would be the ability to rectify that information once it has been submitted to the credit-reporting agency. Number

two, also very important for the individual consumer and small business person, is to provide the information -- quickly and easily accessible -- that is used to determine the creditworthiness of

that individual consumer or small business person.

Why is that? It's because the way the act is presently written, there is no protection, no accountability. In this area, the government must engage this debate

very seriously, because there is no accountability and no protection for the consumers in our province. We can't allow reporting agencies to provide false, inaccurate and misleading information

that affects the lives of our individual consumers and our small business industry. It does it so directly and so adversely that it affects indeed the lives of many consumers. The government must

show leadership, must take responsibility and make sure that information being given out to the general public is correct, and when it isn't, that it must be corrected.

Mr Cordiano brought to the attention of the House that in 2001, over 2,000 complaints were brought to the attention of the consumer protection agency; only one

was audited. That isn't acceptable. That is totally unacceptable.

I can vouch, from my personal experience with Equifax, supposedly a very reputable credit agency -- well, let me tell you, my experience says otherwise,

because when I brought complaints to the attention of Equifax, they said, "We retain the information provided to us to be correct." When I said, "Hold on a second here. This is infringing upon my

rights, and I want to correct it," it was "Forget it. It is here. We deem it to be correct, and it's going to stay in our books for seven years." I beg your pardon?

How can we allow that this credit agency can distribute at will, to anyone who asks about the credit of anyone or of any business, and can continue to provide

false, misleading and incorrect information for a period of seven years? That is unacceptable. We cannot allow that. We cannot allow that when a complaint is lodged with a credit-reporting agency,

they stay mute. Unless a credit check gets done on you, if you go to purchase a car, a home, apply for a mortgage or whatever, anything that warrants a credit check, you may not know that indeed a

complaint was lodged on your credit two, three, four, five, six years ago. It has been on your credit that long because that credit-reporting agency has no responsibility within the existing act to

advise you, the consumer or small business person, to take action and make sure that misleading, incorrect and false information is corrected.

This is very penalizing to consumers in Ontario. It's penalizing to the small business industry, where it affects their day-to-day operations to supply or

receive materials or other goods and even trades. We cannot condone this.

I'd like to thank the member for York South-Weston for bringing this piece of legislation to the House today. I would very strongly encourage the members of

the government to make sure that this private member's bill indeed moves on and is approved today, so that we can say that information that is being collected, provided and distributed hereafter is

correct. I think the public can accept that. I think small business and consumers can accept that as well. The government has a responsibility, when information is provided, that correct

information is provided, and when it is contested, that action must be taken to correct that information.

We must amend the act and provide power to the registrar so that every time a complaint is lodged, it is investigated very effectively. In the last five years,

out of thousands of complaints, only two were investigated. That isn't acceptable.

I hope that today every member of the House will support Mr Cordiano's bill and move it on for the protection of our consumers.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): It's a privilege for me to be able to say a few words on this bill. But before I get too far into

that, I'd like to welcome to the Legislature some students who are here from Welland. They attend Jean Vanier school, and they're in the audience here this morning. We welcome you.

What we're debating is private members' time, which we set aside for individuals to bring forward bills or resolutions that can be debated in a relatively

non-partisan way. That's the intent. Anyone other than a minister can bring forward a bill or resolution, and it can be debated. It's usually an issue that's of concern to that individual in their

respective riding.

This morning we're debating a bill that's been brought forward by the member for York South-Weston about consumer reporting, maybe not a big issue to our

students in the gallery this morning but probably a significant issue to the teachers and parents who are accompanying them here this morning. I'm sure that down the road it's going to be of

significant interest to them once they have a credit rating and are being checked on by various reporting agencies.

There's no question that I certainly support the concern of protecting personal information. I certainly support the

opportunity to be able to correct any information that may be present in one's records that's inaccurate. We know how this information can be mistakenly recorded. Certainly, with computers, some of

these records can be perpetuated way into the future when in fact they're very incorrect and can be very harmful to people.

I think there could have been a little more consultation put into this particular bill prior to bringing it to the House, because there certainly are groups

who are opposed to it; for example, some of the reporting agencies are very opposed to this particular bill. But listening to the debate this morning, I think I'm probably going to be able to

support it, because it does have the kind of intent I certainly believe in.

The present Consumer Reporting Act does provide protection for consumers. That being said, we're more than willing to look at various new ways to improve the

protection of personal information. Everybody in our society should have that kind of protection.

Agencies are regulated under the present Consumer Reporting Act. Often referred to as credit bureaus, CRAs are companies that gather information on consumers

and sell that information in the form of credit reports to credit granters, landlords and others for use in consideration of specific transactions.

These consumer reporting agencies keep records of consumers' debts and how regularly these debts are repaid. They gather information from creditors that shows

what each account holder owes or indeed has paid. These data will show if payments are up to date or overdue and if any action has been taken on these overdue accounts. The reporting agencies'

reports also contain information pertaining to bankruptcies and judgments involving the consumer.

You can see from this how they reach out like tentacles into our everyday lives, whether it's banking, credit cards or whatever. Certainly we need the

opportunity to be able to check out whether mistakes have been made, and as I mentioned earlier, particularly in this era with computers when some of those errors can be extended and be very

harmful to people.

I look at Bill 158. It has a lot of good things in it. However, there are some difficulties with it. I hope some of those difficulties can be corrected when it

goes to committee.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Cordiano: I want to respond to some of the criticisms that have been made by my friends from the governing party. Frankly, this legislation

does achieve balance because it puts the onus back on credit reporting agencies. Right now, there is no balance. The onus is placed on the individual consumer, who does not have the wherewithal or

the resources, and the information is held by these credit reporting agencies.

Someone spoke about the fact that there was no consultation. I alluded to and quoted from support groups, public advocacy groups, that have supported this

legislation. Furthermore, if the members opposite feel there were no consultations, why don't we go to committee and have consultations? You can have all the consultation you want. I'll sit there

till the cows come home, until we pass this legislation. It's absolutely necessary.

One of the members spoke about medical information.

Section 12(2) of the act deals with medical information. As a result of this government pushing more and

more medical costs on to consumers, we're becoming a consumer-driven society in the area of medical services and products. So the same thing applies to consumers in that area. Credit is important

to purchase medically necessary products and services. That's why that

section is in the bill.

As well, release of information to users other than for the intended purpose when you apply for a credit card: we don't want this credit history being

circulated to other credit providers willy-nilly. That shouldn't be happening.

There are a number of provisions in here that do go far enough and do strike the necessary balance. I hope members of the Legislature will support this

legislation.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debating ballot item number 66.

SLOT MACHINES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 65. Mr Kwinter has moved private member's notice of motion

number 17.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will call in the members after I deal with ballot item number 66.

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ballot item number 66: Mr Cordiano has moved second reading of Bill 158,

An Act to Amend the

Consumer Reporting Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to the standing orders, this bill will be referred to --

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): The standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Cordiano has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. Agreed?

Agreed.

SLOT MACHINES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): On ballot item number 65, call in the members. This will be five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kwinter has moved private member's notice of motion number 17.

All those in favour will stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 29; the nays are 41.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters regarding private members' public business now being dispensed with, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to speak on the Harris-Eves government's continued mismanagement of Ontario electricity

policy. From higher costs and bungled regulations to the lack of consumer education about the new system, there's no question that the Harris-Eves government has lost control of the hydro file.

In my riding of Brant, seniors, homeowners, service clubs, large companies and small businesses such as Wayco Ltd continue to pay skyrocketing bills which have

increased 21% since May in the cost of power alone. Even more ridiculous, owner Wayne Atfield contacted my office shocked that he had received two hydro payment bills within the same month of

October, two weeks apart. In fact, I have a copy of Mr Atfield's hydro bills, which clearly show he paid the bill on time but was given another charge in the second bill as a late fee charge, not

to count the fact that the GST charge was higher than the debt retirement charge.

The Harris-Eves government promised that this new system would deliver lower hydro rates and improved service, but since privatization of Ontario Hydro, we

have seen nothing but higher rates and story after story of lousy service time after time. Small businesses like Wayco Ltd will continue to suffer from soaring hydro payments and eventually close

because of the mismanagement of this government. The Liberal caucus has said from the beginning that the Harris-Eves government has completely botched the hydro file.

Premier, show us the plan to fix the mess you made. Better yet, call an election and the people will tell you what they think of this botched government

policy.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Today is Halloween, so I'm bringing you a really scary story. It is a story about being poor in the province

of Ontario.

The Eves government would have you believe that if people are poor, it is their own fault and they must be lazy or immoral or both. The truth is, there are

many reasons why people can end up falling on hard times: losing their job, being in a car accident, being born with a disability, losing their health, having to leave an abusive relationship,

problems with mental health, and the list goes on and on. The truth is that it could happen to any one of us here.

The story gets scarier. If you find yourself poor in Ontario under this government, there is no help. If you are on your own and need social assistance, you

will only receive $520 a month, not even enough to cover your rent. Can you imagine having to live on $6,200 a year? But if you are on social assistance and want to get a better education to

improve your life, forget it. You aren't even allowed to go to school. The $10,000 a year you get in student loans is not enough to pay for school and rent and food, forcing people at the bottom to

stay at the bottom. Kimberly Rogers was on social assistance and she wanted to get off. She collected her $520 a month from social assistance and got the $10,000 in student loans and did well in

school, but today, because of the Tory policies on that, she's not with us any more.

DIWALI

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On Monday, November 4, Ontario's South Asian community will celebrate Diwali, the festival

of lights. Many members of our community will observe this auspicious occasion with their family and friends.

On Diwali, sweets are exchanged and prayers are offered to Lakshmi, the Goddess of Wealth, and to Lord Ganesh. Diwali, the darkest night on the lunar calendar,

marks the return of Lord Rama to his kingdom of Ayodhya after 14 years of exile. For Sikhs, it also marks the return of Guru Hargobind Ji to the holy city of Amritsar after his release from

captivity by the Mughal ruler Jahangir.

In many homes, mandirs and gurdwaras, deeyas, or small lamps, are lit in celebration of the victory of light and goodness over darkness and evil.

On behalf of all members of this Legislature, I would like to extend happy Diwali greetings to Ontario's more than half-million South Asians and the one

billion Hindus and Sikhs worldwide who celebrate Diwali.

Namaste. Sat Sri Akal.

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I rise today to speak about myths and reality.

Howard Hampton and the NDP are trying to breathe life into their tired and dying party by twisting the facts on their Ontario Hydro policy. The NDP want to

close the border to all hydro imports. That would leave Ontario sweating on hot summer days. The NDP want to stop the thousands of megawatts of new and clean gas-powered electrical generation

coming from the private sector. That would leave Ontario in darkness on cold winter nights. And the NDP wants to give Ernie Eves's Ontario Power Generation 100% control over our electrical

generation, despite all their failures. That would result in billions of dollars in new taxes and even higher debt.

There is no wonder the NDP is a tired, dying party that history is leaving behind. Their federal party's leadership race has attracted just 5,000 new people

across the whole of Canada's 301 ridings, and absolutely no news. To put that in perspective, there are single Ontario Liberal riding associations supported by more than 7,000 members.

The public is on to the NDP. They know that, like their public auto insurance policy before this, the NDP hydro platform will never see the light of day,

because they don't trust Howard Hampton and the NDP with hydro any more than they trust them to run our economy.

HALL OF DISTINCTION

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Last Wednesday, October 23, 2002, I had the honour and pleasure of attending an event hosted by the Newmarket

Chamber of Commerce, the annual Hall of Distinction Awards, 2002. There are five categories of awards.

The first one, the new business award, was awarded this year to We Care Home Health Services. This award recognizes successful and innovative new

entrepreneurs. The firm must be at least one year old and cannot have been in existence for more than five years.

The Bell technology award was awarded to Phoenix Systems. This business has demonstrated innovation in the use of technology in the ever-changing

communications area.

The award for developing international trade was awarded to R. Reininger and Son. This award recognizes outstanding achievement in the development of export

markets. Recognition received from governments and organizations outside of our community is also taken into consideration for this award.

The award for extraordinary business achievements went to the Upper Canada Mall. This award recognizes a successful entrepreneurial business, whether large or

small. The areas of achievement include research and development, growth, new market development and community service.

The final award, the founder's award, was awarded to Charles E. Boyd Insurance Ltd. This honour recognizes the founding fathers and mothers of the Newmarket

community. These are the people who have dedicated their working lives to making Newmarket the commercial centre it is today.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): There's a new movie playing all across Ontario. It's a real gory thriller called Nightmare on

Tory Street. Work with me. It's all about a slick Bay Street banker who buys his way into the Premier's chair so that he can continue to look after his friends at the Eves trough with government

appointments.

But what he doesn't know is that all the ghosts and goblins from the last guy are still there to haunt him. His own staff starts leaking cabinet documents. His

ministers sign deals to give away millions to professional sports teams. And then his own scary policies from the past come back to haunt him. Schools are crumbling, families can't access

life-saving surgeries, children don't have textbooks, and hydro bills -- well, they're skyrocketing.

This guy just can't seem to get it under control, even though they refer to his office as the Kremlin. He said he was going be Dalton McGuinty's worst

nightmare, but it's the people in his own party who are jolted awake in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. It's the people in Tory Town who are screaming out in horror. He's plummeting in the

polls. No one knows where he stands on any issue. No one knows why he wants to be Premier. He has no plan to fix the services he broke.

The nightmare is very real on Tory Street. People like Jim Flaherty, Mike Harris, Tony Clement, Janet Ecker and Chris Pipe-up Stockwell can be heard crying

out, "When will this nightmare ever end?" But children, don't worry. There is a happy ending: Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals form the next government and sweep up the Tory mess.

TERRY HARKINS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to be here today to listen to the fairytales from across the way.

I'm very excited to be here today to speak about a special event that happened on October 19, when we had the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship awarded right

here in our provincial Legislature.

Terry Harkins, a friend of mine who actually resides in Sean Conway's riding, was a recipient of one of the awards. I want to mention a little bit about

Terry's background.

Terry is a former educator and now he's a full-time volunteer in our province. First of all, he's the chief superintendent of the Ontario Provincial Police

auxiliary program. For people who don't know that program, and I hope everyone in this gallery understands, there are 940 auxiliary officers in our Ontario Provincial Police program. It's the

largest auxiliary program, I believe, in the world. It's also the main recruitment area for the Ontario Provincial Police.

As well, Terry is the president of the Ontario Education Leadership Centre at Longford Mills. Each year the Ontario Education Leadership Centre graduates 2,200

young leaders from across our province.

I wanted to congratulate Terry on a job well done and on his Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship.

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Leaders from the black community held a press conference this morning. They expressed serious

concerns about events surrounding the black community over the past few weeks in Toronto. They point out that this is far broader than simply a police issue. I very much share their concerns.

The community made a request of Premier Eves to take action. They point out that this issue has been studied, with major studies, several times over the past

few years and many of the recommendations have not yet been implemented. My colleague Alvin Curling is at a media event with the Premier now and I think the question may be asked of him.

I believe the recommendation the group made this morning is a good one, and that is to request the Premier to find a way to have someone or some people look at

the studies that have been done over the past few years, look at the recommendations, look at which ones haven't been implemented, find out why, and put forward an action plan to make sure that the

ones that should go forward do in fact go forward.

I repeat what I said earlier in the week in the Legislature. This is an extremely serious issue, not only for Toronto but also for Ontario. There is a risk of

our communities being very deeply divided. It requires calm and decisive leadership.

I would urge the Premier to look seriously at the recommendation that was made this morning, for him to examine those reports, to look at those recommendations

and to proceed with a plan for implementing the appropriate ones.

ONTARIO VOLUNTEER AWARDS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): On Tuesday, October 28, I had the wonderful opportunity of presenting Ontario Volunteer Awards to many

dedicated, hard-working Niagara constituents.

The volunteer recipients included Harold Detlor and Hugh Detlor -- posthumously accepted on his behalf by his daughter -- for 50-plus years with the 1st

Niagara Scout Group. Thank you and congratulations to both men for their inspiring dedication and commitment; also Sylvia Fast for 30 years of dedication to the same organization.

Niagara Boys and Girls Club volunteer Larry Webster was recognized for 25 years of service to that great organization. Other Niagara Boys and Girls Club

recipients included Dora Nicholson, Dan Nywening, Brian Pellow, John Russell and Bill Walters, all for at least five years, and some for more, of service to the organization.

For the Niagara Falls Curling Club, Margaret Lyon was recognized -- also accepted posthumously, by her daughter, Kim Gibson -- for her 25 years of service to

that organization.

For the Niagara Health System, recognized were volunteers Elizabeth Blanchfield and Evelyn Gavin, and as well as Peggy Johnston and Muriel Triano, both for

over 30 years of service to the Greater Niagara General Hospital ladies' auxiliary; also Rita Viscentin for 20 years of service.

For Niagara-on-the-Lake Community Palliative Care Services, recognized were Emma Adams, Nancy Bongard, Joe Eden, Joyce Loewen, Tom Marlan and Peggy Walker.

Approximately 400 people received awards. I wish I could make mention of each and every one of them as they all deserve recognition for their volunteer

services to the public.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(INSTALLATIONS INDUSTRIELLES)

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 202,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to regulate industrial facilities that use, store or treat hazardous materials / Projet de loi 202,

Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement pour réglementer les installations industrielles où sont utilisés, entreposés ou traités des matériaux

dangereux.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): In my riding we've had to endure an extremely serious problem with brownfield sites caused by hazardous materials in

the past. The bill amends the Environmental Protection Act to fill up some loopholes that exist by requiring that industrial facilities which regularly use, store or treat significant amounts of

hazardous materials prepare and submit an environmental report on their property every five years. The report will be available to the public, submitted to both the Ministry of the Environment and

the Minister of Health. A facility that is ceasing operations is required to submit a final environmental report. Owners of the industrial facilities are responsible for any environmental damage

that occurs on their land while under their care. Hopefully this will rid us of brownfields forever.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN

DE SOUTIEN AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 203,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to empower the Integrity Commissioner to determine the level of income support /

Projet de loi 203, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées en vue de donner au commissaire à l'intégrité le pouvoir de

déterminer le niveau de soutien du revenu.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This is a bill that shouldn't have to be introduced, but it is an opportunity to let the government

do the right thing. Unfortunately, it seems we have to embarrass him. At a time when cabinet ministers are living on publicly funded steaks, we have people on ODSP depending on food banks.

The Speaker: Could you please just stick to your bill and the explanation? Don't let's get political, please.

Mr Parsons: This bill amends the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, to empower the Integrity Commissioner to make recommendations

concerning the level of income support to be set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the program and the time and manner of providing it. This is a bill that does not cause the Legislature

to spend money but provides for recommendations to be made. Legal opinion that I have received indicates that this is acceptable.

NO FREEZING IN THE DARK ACT

(ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE MAINTIEN

DE L'APPROVISIONNEMENT

EN ÉLECTRICITÉ ET EN GAZ

(MODIFICATION DE LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO)

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 204,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 to protect residential consumers from the discontinuance of electricity and gas supplies during

certain months / Projet de loi 204, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario afin de protéger les consommateurs résidentiels contre l'interruption de

l'approvisionnement en électricité et en gaz durant certains mois.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short explanation?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The bill amends the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to provide that supplies of electricity and gas to

residential consumers may not be discontinued without their consent during the period from October 1 to the following May 1 for any reason, including non-payment. The Ontario Energy Board is

required to deal with complaints within 48 hours and to order reconnection if the distributor has contravened the no-discontinuance provision. The distributor is not permitted to charge a

reconnection fee. Failure to comply with the reconnection order is an offence that may result in a fine of up to $1 million. The bill also amends the act to prohibit requiring security deposits

from low-income residential consumers. "Low income" is defined by the regulation. The

short title of this act is the No Freezing in the Dark Act.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want share with the House my thanks to the Minister of Community

and Social Services for having fixed the problem of the young man, Mr Joanisse, who was about to be discontinued from benefits while in hospital for a lung transplant. On behalf of the family and

the people in our community, I want to thank her. We're very thankful.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns electricity supply in Ontario for the

next few years. We've talked about the problems at Pickering A, Minister, but today I want to raise with you another part of the supply problem.

A few years ago Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Québec entered into an agreement -- I thought, a good agreement -- to improve the electricity connection between

Ontario and Quebec, to make available to Ontario, by not later than the year 2004, an additional 1,250 megawatts of Hydro-Québec power. Late reports now suggest that that

Hydro-Québec-Ontario Hydro transmission improvement in eastern Ontario and western Quebec is bogged down with some difficulty. Could you report to the Legislature, Minister of Energy, as to

what you understand the difficulty to be and, more importantly, when you think the Ontario electricity market will actually get access to that 1,250 megawatts of Hydro-Québec power that we had

been expecting not later than the year 2004?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I met with the chair of Hydro One just last week and

again yesterday to discuss this important issue. It's important for the grid and it's certainly important for eastern Ontario and indeed for the entire province. In fact, all regulatory approvals

are in place on our side of the border. This would use an existing corridor, which makes the project have obvious merits. Obviously, we'd like access to low-cost hydro-electric power from northern

Quebec. I'm confident the project will be able to proceed. We're working quite hard with our colleagues in Quebec and we're hoping that they can get the necessary decisions on their proposed rates

from their regulator.

Mr Conway: This is extremely important for all of the electricity consumers of Ontario, who are going to be experiencing a great deal of pain

over the next number of months because, among other things, and perhaps centrally, the problem that we face in Ontario in the short and intermediate term, and by that I mean the next very few

years, is that we've got too much domestic electricity demand chasing too little electricity supply provi