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

April 7, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Apr-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 7 April 2005 Jeudi 7 avril 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT

LE CONSOMMATEUR

ELECTED OFFICIALS

IMMUNITY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES ÉLUS

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT

LE CONSOMMATEUR

ELECTED OFFICIALS

IMMUNITY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES ÉLUS

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

LE PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

AUTISM SERVICES

LITERACY TESTS

HEALTH CARE

DAYCARE

WINCHESTER DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

RWANDAN GENOCIDE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

HEALTH CARE

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TTC SERVICE

AUTISM TREATMENT

VETERANS

LABOUR UNIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

CHILD CARE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

KARLA HOMOLKA

PETITIONS

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FORFEITED

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

DE LA LOI ET L'ADMINISTRATION

DES BIENS CONFISQUÉS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FORFEITED

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

(CONTINUED) /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

DE LA LOI ET L'ADMINISTRATION

DES BIENS CONFISQUÉS /

(SUITE)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT

LE CONSOMMATEUR

Mr. Ruprecht moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 174,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act / Projet de loi 174, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Ruprecht, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I will share my time with the members from York West and from Ottawa-Orléans.

Bill 174,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, speaks to a number of issues that have to do with the financial sector in our province and indeed in

Canada. I am going to divide my speaking time into three aspects of this. The first has to do with identity theft and what happens when your identity has been stolen, the second has to do with the

inquiries that affect your credit score, and the third item has to do with the correction of errors on credit files and the 30-day notice that should be sent out by the banking and financial

sector.

Let me first of all speak to the item of identity theft in this bill. I woke up to identity theft on February 1, 2005, when one of my constituents came to my

office. He was devastated by what had happened to him. He came to my office with a tax bill in his hand and he said, "Mr. Ruprecht, the first I noticed that my house was being stolen was when the

tax roll was sent to me and another person's name was on the tax bill." That's the first he found out about this: when his parents informed him about the change in the name on the tax roll.

What had actually happened was that his house had been sold twice within the previous 18 months. The owner of the house didn't even know what had happened. But

to get his name back on the deed and to get the registrations all in order, he would have to pay his lawyer $4,000 just to get back to normal.

Identity theft, as you know, is the fastest-increasing theft that takes place in North America. For most people, identity theft doesn't mean very much. But when

you're being affected by it in this way, you know that this is a major crime. The devastating consequences of identity theft come home to all of us when we are directly involved. In this case, it

was the son of Italian parents who didn't have a clue what actually had taken place. But when they found out that the house had been sold, and when many other people -- in fact, hundreds of other

people are going to find out that mortgages have been taken out on their homes. Then, of course, alarm bells begin to ring.

The seriousness of this type of crime is really enormous. We know that over a million people in North America are affected by identity theft. The cost to these

million people has been over $5 billion. So the whole question of identity theft is really foremost in our minds today.

As you know, in March 2004 we all got notice that there was a massive identity theft from Equifax Canada credit bureau. Over 2,400 consumer files were

compromised and private information stolen by thieves pretending to be legitimate clients of the credit bureau. Just last month, a large American consumer data repository, ChoicePoint of Atlanta,

reported that 144,778 people might have been affected by ID thieves using previously stolen identities to open accounts. These were criminal elements, foreign criminals, who compromised very

important private data.

What was the response of the government? The response was simply, "We would expect that if your identity has been stolen and your financial file has been

compromised by these credit bureaus, then they should inform you, because you should be on the lookout for what happens to your credit card and your credit file."

It is one thing to sit here in this Legislature and talk about stolen credit, but it is totally another when you are being directly affected by it, as a million

consumers have been. It is incumbent upon us today to ensure that we are the protective agent for our consumers in Canada. When we get to know that these thefts have taken place, what should be the

response of this government? Yes, it is true that our consumer and business minister, Jim Watson, as soon as he got to know about the identity theft, did a great job in trying to ensure that the

businesses were informed, that businesses were being told, "Here is a kit for you. You can protect the identity of your consumers." He also said, through an education campaign, to everyone else who

hasn't accessed their credit file, "Please check it out."

You and I both know that when we look at our own credit cards, on many occasions there are some wrong items on the card. Of course, we call in and, sometimes, as

should take place, these erroneous entries are taken off, but at other times they are not. So let me briefly speak to the whole question of the 30-day notice of correction. As it stands today, we

have a law in Canada, but we have no law in Ontario. That's why, of course, in this specific aspect of Bill 174, we're trying to amend the Consumer Reporting Act in 2005. We're trying to bring it

in line with the federal government.

We're also trying to bring it in line with what happens in California. In California, when ChoicePoint compromised over 144,000 people's security, they were not

told to inform all the consumers all over the United States; they were told only to inform the consumers who had been affected in California. Why California? Because California has a specific law,

known as SB 1386, which says that once a company has files and those files have been compromised, the credit agency must inform the consumer that his files have been compromised. The law requires

companies and agencies that do business in the state of California and that process personal information to report breaches in the security of personal information in their possession. So companies

are forced to act quickly in notifying customers in writing or, for that matter, electronically, posting the information on their Web site that your file has been compromised.

Please check it out. Please ensure that nothing will happen to compromise your credit rating. We don't know how important this really is because each one of us,

whether we know it or not, has a credit file. Each one of us, whether we know it or not, has a credit number. That number is determined on many variables, but one of the most important variables,

of course, is how you pay back your loans, how you pay back your credit card and the dates that you pay it back. It is very important that we, at least to some degree, say to those who have

confidential information -- and that also includes government. It doesn't only include the banks; it also includes credit information and credit-granting agencies. They were saying, through this

bill that, yes, you have not only a right but a responsibility to ensure that every client, every customer of yours, is informed when their credit file has been breached.

We say it very clearly today in the bill: Inform consumers, because consumers have a right to know, and consumers have a right to check out every day what

happens to their credit rating, because of its importance. It is clear that this bill, then, will speak directly to the information requested by the consumer through the credit-granting

agencies.

I am going to take three more minutes, I think, of my time.

The Deputy Speaker: You're out of time.

Mr. Ruprecht: I'm out of time now, but I'll be speaking on this later. Thanks.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Good morning. It's my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 174,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act.

I commend my friend and colleague the member for Davenport for bringing this important bill before the House. It becomes even more important when reading today's news clips. The member for

Davenport talked about a change of ownership of land where the real owner didn't know anything about it. In today's paper, the law society is presently investigating 72 Ontario lawyers in regard to

a very widespread fraud of mortgages, where just that happened: a number of properties were transferred to straw people, probably -- persons who don't really exist -- by fraud, and then mortgages

were obtained. So it is most topical that we start talking about identity theft.

I must say, however, that I believe that this really should have been brought by Minister Watson who, to date, has been concerned with bringing your own wine to

restaurants and things of that ilk rather than the important matters which are affecting our citizens every day around identity theft. There is a growing problem in Ontario of identity theft.

This bill has a number of guidelines for the preservation of private information in various credit bureau files so that it would remain private rather than being

open to misuse by various illegal persons in our province. Secondly, it provides -- this is most important -- that in the event that the security of the credit bureau's files is breached by any

third party, notice would be given to those individuals whose files are now in the hands of criminals.

One would think that, in this day and age, a credit bureau, immediately upon seeing that their security had been breached and information had been leaked or

stolen, would automatically do just that: go to the individuals who are affected and tell them about the problem. Unfortunately, we can no longer rely on many corporations to do the right thing. I

think that if it takes legislation, this particular bill would provide that security for individuals to preserve their integrity.

I do, however, find fault with some portions of the bill. I hope the member for Davenport will request that this go to the appropriate committee for study. I

would like to hear from various areas -- both consumers and industry -- as to how they would be affected, because some of the provisions seem to be somewhat nitpicking. For instance, subsection

12(1) deals with the credit score that's presently used by credit bureaus to rate individuals. This subsection 12(1) attempts to tell the credit bureaus how to use their own rating system. It

reads:

"(

f) the current credit score or the most recent credit score that was previously calculated by the consumer reporting agency, including,

"(

i) the range of possible credit scores under the model used,

"(ii) all the key factors that adversely affected the score,

"(iii) the date the credit score was created, and

"(iv) a

summary of how the credit score was calculated, including the method used."

That seems unworkable, quite frankly. Our telling the credit bureaus how they are to rate individuals -- I think we are in some difficulty.

However, there are provisions dealing with disclosure to consumers and putting on a time limit. I understand that possibly some of the credit bureaus may not

have addressed the matter of consumer complaints about the accuracy of information within their possession too expeditiously, and this will put time frames on it.

As I say, I commend the member for Davenport for bringing this bill before the House.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My colleague Gilles Bisson, from Timmins-James Bay, will be speaking to this bill as well.

I'm pleased to support this legislation. I think it's important that this chamber pass this bill today and get it into committee. The mere fact that it has

generated squeals of protest from Equifax Canada Inc., the mere fact that it has generated squeals of concern from TransUnion -- they were but two of the companies. Look, these people are perfectly

entitled, but this is pretty remarkable. Here's a private member's bill that hasn't even been passed and it has already generated submissions to committee. That means that Mr. Ruprecht is on to

something.

I want to talk about credit in general for a moment. Let's refer back to Bill 70. You recall Bill 70? That minister? Oh, that minister. Talk about squealing: the

one who squealed about the need to get his Bill 70 passed because Bill 70 contains some amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act too. It still hasn't been proclaimed. My goodness. What is the

minister talking about, or is he just talking through his hat? Bill 70 contained amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act, purportedly to protect consumers, because he is purportedly the minister

of consumer protection, yet here we are again. The minister, the one making the big bucks, one Honourable Jim Watson: Does he deliver? No. It takes backbencher Tony Ruprecht to deliver the real

goods. Why, it's Mr. Ruprecht who should be getting into the limo at the end of the day. It's Mr. Ruprecht who should have the appellation "honourable." It's Mr. Ruprecht who should be making the

big bucks, because it's he who's doing the hard work. Here is Ruprecht doing the tough slugging. Does he get credit? No. Watson doesn't even proclaim bills that he squeals about having to get

passed, and he's the one with the limo, the key to the executive washroom, and he broke the $100,000 club, easy, with his ministerial salary.

There should be a broad-based debate around consumer credit in this province, in this country. You can't pick up a newspaper, a magazine or a journal of any sort

without reading incredible -- Linda Leatherdale, for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect and affection, writes often about the crisis of consumer debt. This preoccupation with

governmental debt is one thing, but consumer debt is yet another. The escalation of consumer debt and the crisis that will be prompted by even a small increase in interest rates and the loss of

equity in their homes, for instance, that people will suffer with the increase in interest rates will generate untold and unprecedented tragedy for working folks, small business people and

families.

I've had occasion to comment on the credit card industry alone. Heck, in our lifetimes we have seen the proliferation of credit cards. Back in the 1960s,

American Express was at the vanguard of the credit card industry. It was considered a very exotic sort of thing. I remember back when I was a kid in the 1950s, it was incredibly exotic for somebody

to have a credit card. It was considered the privilege of the very wealthy, the Hollywood-Fifth Avenue set. Yet in a period of a few short decades, there isn't a kid in the province who doesn't

have at least one credit card. If they don't have a credit card, they're getting the applications for them or they're getting them sent to them pre-approved.

As I say, we need a broad-based discussion on consumer credit. I have serious concerns about the incredible irresponsibility of the credit card industry in terms

of who they grant credit to, the basis upon which they grant it and, quite frankly, the usurious interest charges that accompany it.

Make note of this: This is but one observation. I'm going to tell you how to get your credit limit increased. If you've got a $5,000 credit limit, don't pay it

down. The credit card company has no interest whatsoever in the person who pays off their account every month. If you've got a $5,000 limit and you pay your account off every month, you're never

getting to get an increase. If you've got a $5,000 limit and you let it linger at four or four and a half grand, you'll get bumped up to $7,500 automatically. Then, if you let it linger at around

$6,500 or $7,000, they'll bump you up to 12 grand.

It is an irrefutable fact that the credit card industry -- it's almost like the government's casino policy, which focuses on the most addicted gambler. The

credit card industry focuses on the most irresponsible borrower, because the person who pays their card off every month is of no interest to the credit card company. The person who pays their

balance off every month costs that company money, especially if it's one of these airline miles -- what do they call them? There's a name for that, when they give points, prizes or gifts.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the whole credit industry -- department store credit cards. You're talking about interest rates that are in the high

20s, for Pete's sake. Heck, what's the prevailing rate of interest out there? It's around 5% or 5.5% if you go to your credit union or your bank, if you have a relationship with the bank.

Incredible. This is no comment of detraction. I'm not detracting from the thrust of the bill, because the bill has a very specific goal. But really, a debate around these operators, with their 28%

or 29% interest rates -- or even their 18% and 19% interest rates on the Diners Club etc. credit cards.

Look, I use credit cards. We are becoming a cashless society. But having said that, I'll simply make this observation: We could avoid all of this grief if only

people would join credit unions, participate in them and develop a relationship with credit unions. They'll find that they can avail themselves of appropriate levels of credit, with fair interest

rates and useful assistance in terms of how to arrange one's own financial affairs in terms of credit and how much debt load you can responsibly assume. We wouldn't have a problem around identity

theft and the irresponsibility of Equifax. How many names, Mr. Ruprecht, did Equifax get pilfered? Hundreds, as I recall Mr. Ruprecht saying.

Mr. Ruprecht: It was 2,400.

Mr. Kormos: Some 2,400 were pilfered from Equifax. Although, on the one hand, we Canadians applaud ourselves for not being as litigious as our

American neighbours, it's in instances like this that I wish we were more litigious. People should be suing the tail off of Equifax and other companies like it; suing the daylights out of them and

getting judgments of punitive damages that make the suckers sit up straight and pay attention.

This bill has to go to committee. I'm confident that Mr. Ruprecht will be successful in referring this bill to committee. I understand that Mr. Ruprecht

anticipates sending it to the finance committee, which is an entirely appropriate committee.

Clearly, Equifax, TransUnion, companies like this, want to have their say, but there are victims of identity theft. There could well be some Equifax identity

theft victims. There are advocates for responsible debt management who, I'm sure, want to have a say in this.

I would go one further, because I anticipate, if and when this bill goes to committee, moving an amendment to the following effect, so pay attention, Equifax,

TransUnion and other credit reporting agencies: that every time a request is made of one of these companies about any given person's credit rating, that that person be advised of the fact that a

request was made, whom it was made by and the information that was given to them. That's only fair. It's the responsible thing to do.

There are no secrets any more. I talked about American Express back in the 1960s. It was the word on the street in the 1960s and in left-wing magazines and

newspapers that the CIA used American Express credit transactions to track people in those post-McCarthy, paranoid decades. I don't know for a fact whether that's true, but it doesn't seem

unlikely, does it?

The fact is that today the prospect of the CIA using its insidious tentacles to access American Express records is silly in comparison to how readily any one of

us in our spending habits, where we are at any given point in time, can be tracked -- everything from the gasoline we purchase through to bank transactions.

Look, when you go to the bank and deposit or withdraw money, they know exactly how much you deposited and they know in what denomination of bills. When the clerk

writes down one 50, two 20s and a 10 when you're withdrawing 100 bucks from the bank, that's a permanent record of exactly what denomination of bills you withdrew.

There are no secrets any more. I believe that puts the onus increasingly upon us to ensure that the privacy rights of people are protected and to ensure that

people aren't slandered. That's why I stand firmly behind the proposition that a request for a credit report should be reported promptly to the person about whom it is being requested, along with

the information that was conveyed, so that that person can move quickly to correct erroneous information before it percolates out there into the broader community, causing even more damage than it

would in the first instance.

Thank you kindly. I look forward to supporting this bill.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm pleased to rise and join the debate today. I'd just say that I commend my colleague the member from

Davenport for bringing forth this legislation and the member from Niagara Centre for trying to get him a limousine.

I think this is very important legislation -- some of us have seen in the Toronto Star today the headline about the 93 lawyers being part of a theft squad -- and

the timing is perfect. I don't know how you have that control with the press.

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): Seventy-two lawyers.

Mr. McNeely: Seventy-two.

In the short time I have, I want to focus specifically on the first aspect of the legislation, which is the subject of identity theft. I suspect that all members

view identify theft as a serious threat to the safety of Ontarians because, simply put, it can happen to anyone.

When most of us think about personal security, we tend to focus on things like locking doors and avoiding alleyways that we shouldn't be in, but theft today is

of a different nature. In this day and age, we need to start focusing and protecting more than just ourselves and our possessions; we need to protect our identities. Of course, that is much easier

said than done. It doesn't take more than a few strokes at the keyboard for thieves to steal our personal information right out from under our noses. They don't just rob us; they can literally

become us.

Thankfully, the people of Ontario know this is happening. The problem is that they don't always know when it has happened. It is very possible for a person's

information to be stolen and used without the victim even knowing about it until it is too late. Without a doubt, people feel vulnerable to this kind of assault. That is why, in an Ipsos-Reid poll

conducted last month, 79% of Canadians said that the government should help to protect them from identity theft.

This survey was done nationwide -- it is not specific to Ontario -- but it points to a growing need for action to be taken.

Of course, part of what people need to do is ensure that they are protecting themselves. There is always an element of protection that must come from the

individual regardless of what is threatening them.

The Minister of Consumer and Business Services has already helped seniors be aware of what they need to do to protect themselves by providing them with

fraud-free calendars. I commend him for that. Those have been a real winner in my community. Seniors appreciate the fact that we're helping them in this.

As the member for Davenport has stated, companies such as consumer data repositories and banks do not have to inform customers if personal information has been

stolen or has gone missing. Surely they must protect that information when we give it to them. This makes protecting one's identity that much harder, considering that the public has faith in these

companies to keep their information confidential.

In the same poll I mentioned earlier, 87% of people thought that banks should be working to protect them; 85% said that credit card companies should do so; 75%

said that credit bureaus and 72% said that retailers should do their part. I think the message is loud and clear: People want to know that their personal information and identities are safe, and

they want to help businesses and government do that.

This bill takes us in that direction. This bill would help make Ontario a leader in the fight against identity theft by requiring people to be informed when

their identity is stolen or goes missing. It will also ensure that people have access to reports about their credit that are distributed to third parties. I believe that this is also very important

because people have the right to know what is being said about their credit and whether what is being said is accurate.

I must say I can't find a reason not to provide the people of Ontario with more protection for their identities and better access to their own personal

information. I'd like to thank my colleague for bringing forth this legislation. I would urge all members to help the people of Ontario by supporting this bill.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to speak to Bill 174,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, 2005. I commend the member for

bringing this bill forward, as it is an important issue on the minds of a lot of my constituents. I also want to say that this isn't the first time this type of bill has been before the House. In

fact, it's been passed by this House a couple of times because of the problem that's out there in our communities.

I do want to point out, though, that although it appears to go a long way to solving some of the problems, it also puts in a lot of red tape and regulations

that will not necessarily benefit society as a whole. Most acutely, it's in the area of taking away personal responsibility and putting the onus on all the credit providers in what they do with

information, how they must deal with keeping track of it and how they must inform the consumer. It takes away a lot of the onus that would be on what the consumer needs to do.

While this bill goes to some length to provide people in Ontario with more up-to-date and substantive information about their own credit history, it takes much

of the responsibility out of the hands of the individual and places it primarily in the hands of businesses in our community, and they don't need more onus put on them, more cost of doing business

that they must put. I was talking to a farm implement dealer the other day; it was nothing to do with this bill but it was on the same type of thing: The federal government's privacy laws were

being implemented. As he looked through what he needed to do, he had to hire another person in his office just to do what this bill was asking. I have some concern that this bill that's being

proposed here today is going to do that to a greater extent. There are a lot of other areas where the McGuinty government has been putting more cost on our local small businesses already, and I

think this would go one step further in adding a little bit more to that.

It's important that we deal with the personal information that's flying out there in space and the new modern technology we have and what can be done and how

quickly this can travel. I think it's important that people know where it's going. I'm just reminded here of a story in the news that the CIBC was faxing their clients' personal and credit

information to a scrapyard in the United States, and the people in the scrapyard had absolutely no connection to it. It's very important that we have legislation that deals with that.

The primary purpose of this bill, I understand, is the issue of credit and credit information. The bill will prevent a consumer credit check from being used as

a key factor in determining a consumer's credit score. In order to provide more transparency, any credit check used to build a consumer's credit score must be disclosed to the consumer upon

request. If credit is being denied, I think it's appropriate that the consumer is informed why their credit is being denied and what the credit check had produced.

The bill also requires that when an adverse action is taken against a consumer -- again, this would be when the loan or the money was not granted -- based on

any information contained within a credit report, the company or individual taking said action must inform the consumer of the action, provide the consumer with a copy of the report and notify the

consumer of the right to correct incomplete or inaccurate information. That sounds appropriate, but at the same time we need to be careful that we don't take from that that no one can be denied

credit because they haven't got all this information. I think this information should be made available if it's there and the consumer doesn't know it's there. I think that's appropriate.

The bill provides that where a consumer reporting agency discovers that there has been an unlawful disclosure of consumer information, it should immediately

report to and inform the affected consumer. That may be the most important part of the bill, and I think that would be enough to make me vote in favour. When a mistake has been made, the person

making the mistake, as when the CIBC bank faxed the information, should be obligated to immediately inform the people on whose behalf they made that mistake.

I would like to go on, but I know we have other members who would like to speak. I will be voting in favour of the bill, and it is because of that: People are

entitled to know about their own credit information. It is inappropriate that someone could be denied credit and could have all kinds of things imposed upon them and find out that people have been

depending on erroneous reports, that the credit is really not what the report says. For that, I commend the member for bringing this forward, and I will be supporting it.

Mr. Sergio: I am delighted to join my colleagues in the House to speak in support of Bill 174, which is much needed and has been introduced in

such a timely way by our colleague Mr. Ruprecht from Davenport. It is timely indeed, and much needed. Until a few years ago, we didn't have this particular problem. It seems that as soon as the

criminal aspect out there, the fraudsters, find a new way to defraud the public, bingo, it mushrooms, and then we have the problem that we have today.

The Canadian credit reporting agencies report more than 1,800 identity theft complaints each month -- each month. That is a lot of people, a lot of

individuals, a lot of businesses affected, because businesses are also caught in the same situation. Believe you me, when you are caught, it's shocking. It's not a very pleasant thing to know that

someone has stolen your identity. If you were to speak publicly, people would say, "Oh, come on. How can somebody steal my identity?" And then the problem begins, and they will feel the effect when

it happens to them.

Seventy per cent of all of that begins with identity theft -- personal information. The ministry, Mr. Watson and our government have put a lot of information

out there on how to protect from this possible type of fraud.

Two very important aspects of the bill: I should say that, hand in hand, amendments should be made to the Consumer Reporting Act, as this bill today calls for,

and at the same time we should be dealing with collection agencies. The way collection agencies go about conducting their business is absolutely not acceptable and is, I say, criminal. I hope

Equifax is listening today, because I have had a run-in with them as well, and it wasn't very pleasant. I hope that by supporting this bill today in the House, sending it to committee and bringing

it back, we can send a very strong message to Equifax and all the other credit reporting agencies to clean up their act and act in the interests of the consumers here in Ontario.

I don't have time, but just quickly, a very important point: What does the act intend to do? It says:

"

(1.1) No consumer reporting agency shall provide a consumer report to any person without first obtaining,

"(

a) a copy of the consent by which the consumer authorized the communication of personal or credit information."

In my own personal case, a fraud was committed. I never signed any piece of paper requesting a credit report. It was done fraudulently. Go and try to tell

Equifax. Go and try to solve it yourself.

Another important aspect of the bill:

"

(3.1) No consumer reporting agency shall consider as a key factor in determining the credit score of a person the fact that there is an inquiry record or that

a personal or credit information has been obtained."

At the moment, the way agencies operate is up to them. They do whatever the heck they want to do and how they want to do it. If you want to put a claim on

anybody's credit, Equifax and other reporting agencies say, "Well, it's not up to us. This is the information we have received." They assume that the information or the query they have received is

sacrosanct and that they are right and the public is wrong. This must stop. This bill, if approved in the House, will go a long way to correct some of these inequities that affect individuals and

small businesses in Ontario.

I laud my colleague the member from Davenport for bringing this forward. I hope we can approve it, bring it back, and then send a message to the public out

there.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 174,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, 2005,

which has been introduced by the MPP for Davenport.

I certainly agree with the intended purpose of this bill. It is extremely important at this time that we have legislation in the province of Ontario that

protects our citizens from identity theft and also alleviates the numerous inequities that presently exist between the consumers and the banking industry.

I support the changes provided for in this bill, particularly that if a consumer reporting agency discovers that there has been an unlawful disclosure of

consumer information, it should immediately inform the affected consumer. We know what has happened in the past here and in the United States, and it's important that we have this type of law in

Canada.

I also support the fact that this bill provides that, upon request, consumers are entitled to a copy of the report obtained by a third party so that the

consumer is able to challenge its accuracy. Of course, there are guidelines here for storing and safekeeping of consumer information, including electronic signatures, because we know that today,

with increasing technology, there is a very, very serious problem with identity theft. This bill would certainly help to minimize and protect against identity theft.

I also support the fact that it's going to deal with the whole issue of application for credit. I don't think most people know that when they apply for credit

at present, it lowers their credit score. This would put into effect the fact that "consumer credit bureaus and other persons may not consider, as a key factor in determining the credit score of a

consumer, the fact that a consumer report has been requested."

It also provides that "a consumer reporting agency shall only report" credit "inquiry records resulting from actual applications for credit except in a report

given to the consumer." I think that's extremely important. I don't think people in this province have any idea of what happens behind the scenes when they currently apply for credit and how it

affects their future applications for credit and ability to obtain credit.

The third point I just briefly want to speak to is the fact that this bill would actually correct errors that would be on our personal credit files. In the

United States, they have legislation; we do not have such legislation. This bill would provide that "consumer reporting agencies shall investigate disputed information within 30 days and correct,

supplement or delete any information found to be unconfirmed, incomplete or inaccurate."

I support this bill; I support it going to committee for further debate and discussion.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to say that I have no problem supporting this legislation. In fact, I've had a number of people

in my constituency who have been taken by some of these organizations in two ways -- one, by way of people who go to these payday loan organizations. Oh, my God, I'm telling you, it's unbelievable,

the amount of interest that people have been charged.

I was just reading some of the notes in the file, and I noted the judgment from Ottawa in regard to some of the interest rates that were charged to

individuals. Now, we know -- all of us in this Legislature -- that there is a law that says the maximum allowable you can charge is 60% on one year; anything above that is criminal. I think

anything around 60% is criminal. I think what I'm paying on my credit card is kind of criminal, but that's another story. In the particular cases in Ottawa, you were looking at rates of 1,000% and

2,000% that were charged to individuals on some of these payday loans. Give me a break. I bet you loan sharks in New York City or Boston or any of those places back in the 1930s would have been

doing backflips in their grave if they could have gotten that kind of money. These people did it in the guise of a business with a sign on the front of their office saying, "Come in and we'll help

you out in order to bring you to your next payday." I'll tell you, it's pretty disgusting.

I just want to say that I support the member on two fronts. One is that we need to deal with the payday loan organizations, because the problem is that they're

taking advantage of those who least should be taken advantage of. Normally, people who go into these institutions -- I wouldn't even call them institutions; that would be giving them credit -- who

go into these businesses are those who normally can't do business otherwise. They can't get money from a finance company. They can't get money out of a credit card. They're at the point of credit

where they're not able to do it. So these people say, "Gladly. Come on in and we'll charge you a huge amount of interest in order to lend you a few bucks until next payday." And they're never able

to pay back the money. We've had cases come into the office where people are making the payments that they need to make and then some, and they owe more money than they did when they started. We

need to deal with that.

The other issue, and I think it's wise of the member to bring this forward -- I want to echo what my friend Mr. Kormos from Niagara Centre said. In fact, I'm

surprised that the minister of consumer and corporate relations has not come forward with such a bill. I have to ask myself, where is the minister of consumer and corporate relations when it comes

to this issue? I certainly hope that he and the rest of the people in cabinet are going to support what Mr. Ruprecht, the member for Davenport, is trying to do because, quite frankly, this should

be a government bill.

I commend the member for bringing it forward. Maybe, as Mr. Kormos said, we should give you the keys to the limo and let you take over the ministry. I think

you would have an interest in making this pass. Anything we can do to help you to move Mr. Watson along, we would so gladly be there to assist you.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Davenport.

Mr. Ruprecht: I just want to ensure today that two items get placed on the record: One is the application for credit affecting the credit

score, and the other is the correction of errors on credit files.

Only a small percentage of people know that the actual act of applying for credit, notwithstanding whether it's approved or not, lowers the consumer credit

score. Each time a consumer applies for credit, his or her score is lowered by 6 to 8 points, depending on their overall credit score. An average consumer who has a score of 640 to 680 is

particularly affected, as lowering the score by 20 to 25 points as a result of as few as three or four applications for credit may render such an individual unable to apply for a mortgage or

otherwise, disqualifying him or her for favourable rates.

In their zest for consumer business, financial providers fail to inform consumers that applying too many times for credit leads to lowering their credit score

and therefore their creditworthiness. In the United Kingdom, applications for credit do not affect the composition of credit scores. There is a good example that Ontario might be looking at. In

short, Bill 174 provides that consumer credit bureaus and other persons may not consider as a key factor in determining the credit score of a consumer the fact that a consumer report has been

requested -- simply requested. In addition, credit scores and the key factors used to determine them are added to the list of information to be disclosed to the consumer upon request. Bill 174

provides that consumer reporting agencies shall only report credit inquiry records resulting from actual applications for credit, except in a report given to the consumer. This is indeed a very

effective way of saving millions of dollars to consumers whose credit scores have been lowered simply by their making an application for credit. We'll talk about that some more.

Finally, let me talk about the correction of errors in credit files, which is another abomination in the industry. As you know, half a million consumers in the

United States were asked the question, "Have you had a chance to look at your credit file, and how many errors have you seen?" To my utter amazement, 47% of a half a million Americans responded and

said, "You know what? On my credit file is an error." There's been erroneous information, either narrative comments or other types of information: wrong names, wrong numbers. Sometimes they have

been cross-filed and mixed-filed. Forty-seven per cent -- that's unheard of. That's almost every second person who has a credit file. Forty-seven per cent said there was an erroneous comment or

erroneous information on their credit file, which directly affects the creditworthiness of each consumer.

In the United States, they have legislation which prohibits consumer files from being affected by unconfirmed information beyond a 30-day limit. Upon receiving

consumers' complaints or disputes, American credit bureaus must delete any unconfirmed information within this time limit. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Ontario. Our Consumer Reporting Act

in Ontario provides that the credit bureau shall -- note this -- "within reasonable time" investigate disputes. But experience shows that a reasonable time may extend to several months or even

several years. There is no obligation on credit companies to ensure there's a response within 30, 60 or 90 days. "Reasonable time" leaves the door open to abuse. Why should we in Canada be

considered second-class citizens to the United States, when they have a very specific law which says that within 30 days there has to be a response to any inquiry? This in Canada, in Ontario, is

leaving our hapless consumers to suffer the damages as a result of unconfirmed information on his or her credit report.

Therefore, Bill 174 "provides that consumer reporting agencies shall investigate disputed information within 30 days and correct, supplement or delete any

information found to be unconfirmed, incomplete or inaccurate." We want to ensure that our consumers do not suffer.

Yes, it is true that our Minister of Consumer and Business Services is informed about this and wants to make some changes. We simply want to ensure that

Ontario law, the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act, is in line with what Canada actually says. Did you know that the Canadian federal law says that there shall be a 30-day limit? Consequently, there

is a question: Is the Ontario consumer protected within that 30-day limit because of the Canadian law or do we in Ontario have the Consumer Reporting Act saying that a "reasonable time" is

requested for the credit grantor to respond? Since that is not clear, why don't we in Ontario make sure that our consumers are being protected? They too should come under the same legislation;

namely, if you make a request to a credit granting company, to a credit reporting agency, then you have the right to have a response within 30 days. If you don't get the response, then they must

make sure that that information is being deleted, because it is not accurate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ruprecht, you now have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Ruprecht: I want to make sure that I say my thanks to those who are supporting this bill. I want to thank the members from Cambridge,

Niagara Centre, Timmins-James Bay, Ottawa-Orléans, York West, Oxford and Kitchener-Waterloo. I understand that the vast majority of the members here today will be supporting this bill, and I

appreciate that very much. It is about time that we bring the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act of 2005 in line not only with what's happening federally but also with what's happening in the United

States. There should be a dovetailing effect taking place, and we should ensure that our consumers in Ontario are being protected.

I want to make one short comment about what the member from Niagara Centre said. I want to show you, Mr. Speaker, that as you know, we are being inundated by

credit card companies to take credit. I get at least one credit application to be filled out once a month. I know that some of my residents and some of my constituents come to my office, and there

pockets because they thought for some odd reason that they had an obligation to fill them out. I know this is not the case with most of us. But we owe it to those who are not totally informed to

try to ensure that we are being fair. What I hear today from those members who have spoken to this bill, each one of you has said that fairness is important to the consumers of Ontario. Let's open

the door a bit more. Let's be fair to ensure that this reporting act is justice.

ELECTED OFFICIALS

IMMUNITY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES ÉLUS

Mr Ouellette moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

An Act to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards with certain privileges, immunities and powers / Projet de loi 165,

Loi octroyant certains privilèges et pouvoirs et certaines immunités aux membres élus des conseils municipaux et des conseils scolaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): This is a small bill, and it intends to extend

section 37, the privileges of speech under the Legislative

Assembly Act, which reads, "A member of the assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing the member brought by

petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said before the assembly or a committee thereof."

First of all, I'd like to thank my staff for the hard work they did in assisting with this bill -- Paul, Al, Lori, Cathy and Candy -- and in getting the

information out on this particular bill.

I'm going to discuss some of the issues. I know that there are some strong concerns, that the members may feel the expected outcome of this legislation will be

an increase in unfounded claims or untruths and increase in poor behaviour in the chambers of other elected officials. As expressed in the speech by my party's own new leader, we must attempt to

raise the level of decorum in our own chambers to set a new standard, to lead by example. Quite frankly, I believe that those small numbers of individuals who may abuse a given privilege should not

take away from the individuals who respect and honour the privilege given to represent a constituency.

I have met with local papers, and we discussed this very issue about decorum somewhat extensively. A concern was brought out that certain individuals will act

as clowns, calling each other names and acting like misbehaving school kids in a schoolyard. Well, quite frankly, people deserve the people they elect, and if someone steps out of line or misuses a

privilege, then it is clearly the ability of the electorate to see at large exactly the sort of person they have elected.

I hope the members will try to understand the reason that I brought this legislation. I was approached by an elected official's spouse -- because the actual

elected official was somewhat concerned about approaching me -- who proceeded to explain to me that during their council sitting, for several months now, they had specifically asked for pertinent

information as it relates to an issue that was being discussed before their chamber. They stated at that time that the staff members had been unable or unwilling to provide the information, so

again a deferral notice was put in on this specific information.

After the session, one of the staff members approached this elected official and specifically stated that if the individual ever stated in that fashion again

at a public meeting that they could not or would not provide that information, they would sue that elected official. You can just imagine how this individual responded, and to my knowledge is still

reluctant to speak their full minds. I believe those individuals who may be perceived as setting a bad tone should not disallow hardworking individuals the ability to effectively perform their

job.

As I started doing further research for this legislation, I began asking questions of other elected officials who currently don't have the same privilege we

have in the Legislature and on Parliament Hill. I was rather surprised at the response. It would appear that it's not just the bureaucracy or staff members who were threatening elected bodies and

stopping people from fully expressing their opinions, but organizations, businesses, special interest groups and others of similar fashion had approached elected officials and to an extent

threatened those elected officials that if they said anything negative regarding their specific issue, they would have them in court so fast their heads would spin.

How can an elected official make an informed decision or inform their electorate when they can't receive the information from the other members when they are

trying to discuss it; when they can't express a belief about a particular issue that is being brought forward; if afraid of the reprisals when they represent their constituency; if they are unable

to speak their minds? It's called going in camera. In order to openly and fully discuss these issues without reprisals, in our "ever quick to get to the courts and take you to court" society,

elected officials could be forced more and more to go, in secrecy, behind closed doors, which I believe is not in the best interest of the public at large.

It's been stated that there are already enough protections in place for these elected officials and it's not in the best interest to extend these privileges.

I'm sure you're all aware here in our chamber that there are exemptions in our privileges that exclude us from complete court immunity. I did state to these people that I would look into this

situation and, if I was able to, I would assist in rectifying these situations.

That's why I'm here today. I bring forward a bill to hopefully receive a full debate on this issue. Hopefully a majority of members will support Bill 165, the

Elected Officials Immunity Act, to possibly move forward to gather further information on this particular issue. I hope this information goes much further than just this, that possibly we have the

opportunity to receive other information from the municipalities.

During our deliberations and research on this particular legislation, we contacted municipalities throughout Ontario and received a wide range of responses, as

I would hope members received on this particular issue, and I want to bring a couple forward.

One from the town of the Blue Mountains states: "That this council does hereby endorse and support the private member's bill introduced by Jerry Ouellette,

MPP, and title Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, which, if enacted, would" -- and this is the key point according to the town of the Blue Mountains -- "at long last provide elected members of

municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities and powers presently granted to members of other levels of government in Ontario and Canada."

We've received a large number from individuals, in particular councillors, as well as councils that "fully support the initiative and would appreciate being

updated as it proceeds through the Legislature." That's from a councillor in the Ottawa area.

Quite frankly -- and I'm going to be honest -- we didn't receive full support for it. There was one municipality, and only one, to my knowledge, that got back

to us and said they were not, and that was Brockville. They said: "That council finds no reason to change the status quo in reference to the private member's bill Elected Officials Immunity Act."

Other than that, we had one other councillor who was opposed to it, and, to my knowledge, those were the only two.

We received responses from all across Ontario: Fort Frances, North Grenville, French River, the municipality of Bluewater, Sioux Narrows, Nestor Falls,

Chapleau, Tweed, and the list goes on; a large number of municipalities all responding on this issue.

Some of the other concerns are that if an elected official, a councillor, reads a petition in their chamber -- they may not be aware of this -- they could be

held liable for the words contained within the petition. So if they're presented a petition to read within their chamber, they may effectively be charged or taken to court for the contents of that,

being that it could be detrimental to an individual or not in a positive light with regard to a certain entity as brought forward on issues discussed within councils or school boards.

With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks. I think I've expressed the key concerns: It's trying to extend the Legislative Assembly Act's provision number 37.

I'll read it again just to make sure that people are clear:

"Privilege of speech, etc.

"A member of the assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing the member

brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said before the assembly or a committee thereof."

Other municipalities have asked for further extensions beyond

section 37, but I believe the spoken word is a good start.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Let me commence by indicating that I'm going to support this bill. I believe it's important that it go to

committee because it raises a number of issues that warrant some broad-based discussion. I support the bill with some caveats, but again, precisely the reason why it should pass on second reading

and go to committee.

Like the author of the bill, I come from down in Niagara -- I'm not like him in that regard, because he doesn't come from Niagara; he comes from the Oshawa

area. But, like him, I know that the councillors and trustees on city councils in communities in Niagara, Welland, Thorold, Pelham, St. Catharines and Port Colborne -- I'm talking about small-town

Ontario here -- are incredibly hard-working individuals. It's hard to criticize any one of them for not having commitment and passion about their involvement as an elected representative. When I

say "small-town Ontario," I want you to know these people are not making the salaries of Toronto city councillors. They don't have the budgets of Toronto city councillors; they don't have the staff

of Toronto city councillors; they don't have the research facilities of Toronto city councillors, or probably Ottawa or communities like that, that effectively have full-time city councillors.

As a matter of fact, Councillor Mary Ann Grimaldi raised this bill with me several weeks ago when we were at the opening of the new YMCA in Welland. I told her

I was looking forward to Mr. Ouellette having his private member's hour -- to wit, today -- so that I would have a chance to speak to the bill, because I was on a small-town city council too. I was

on Welland city council for three years prior to being fortunate enough to be sent here by the folks down there. Maybe they just wanted to get me out of town, but I'm grateful to them.

I understand the libel chill and the bullying that can prevail in these councils. One of the problems -- it's not a problem; it's a reality -- is that

councillors, like I'm sure the ones Mr. Ouellette and I are both talking about, get advice from the city solicitor about what can or can't be done. The city solicitor inevitably, in his or her

wisdom, tenders very conservative counsel and errs on the side of caution. I've got councillors coming to me, saying, "Geez, I'm told I can't say this or I can't raise this issue or I can't mention

this." I say, "Horse feathers. Tell them to go pound salt."

I recognize that they're receiving the advice that errs on the side of caution. That city councillor is relying upon a city solicitor who doesn't want to stick

his or her neck out and have the councillor knocking on his or her door after the fact, saying, "Whoa, you told me I could do this and now I've got some maniac serving me with a statement of claim

and dragging me through the courts." Especially when you're dealing with high-priced people who may not like what you're saying about their interests, their financial interests -- developers. Say

it. That's what you mean, isn't it, Mr. Ouellette? That's what we're talking about, among other things. Mr. Ouellette didn't say it, but I've said it. Developers have been there with the threats of

litigation.

There are lawyers in this chamber who could give you legal advice; I'm not about to. As I recall it, it's a truism that truth is always a defence to libel or

slander. But it's the mere process of being sued: of having to hire a lawyer and of being drawn through the courts, especially if you've got a wealthy protagonist like a rich developer dragging you

through the courts; or like this government. Look what this government has done, dragging people through the courts. Look what this government has done dragging those families, those parents of

kids with autism, through the courts and then still saying it's going to appeal.

It's a very sound, firm, well-reasoned decision, because the government has deep pockets. The government has its arms out there, its tentacles picking the

pockets of every taxpayer in the province. It's got to do another round of litigation in the Court of Appeal? No problem; they just go to general revenues and cut a cheque. But the poor parents,

who then have to litigate in the Court of Appeal after having won their victory in the Superior Court of Justice, don't have deep pockets.

I understand the sentiment and I appreciate the clarification by the member that he wishes his bill to reflect only the immunities provided by

section 37 of

the Legislative Assembly Act. He'll agree with me that that's not the bill as written. That's where we've got to have some discussion about this in committee. Do you understand what I'm saying?

This bill prompted me to go back to Maingot's text on Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition. I'm grateful as well for the counsel of the clerk's table over the course of years, quite

frankly, through this very thorny maze of privilege. Privilege is far more than just the immunity to litigation for libel or slander; it's the immunity to civil arrest, for instance. It's the

privilege not only of the individual but of the collective.

An interesting thing happened in Canada with the introduction of a patriated Constitution in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There had been a long-standing

tradition in the courts of what Joseph Maingot refers to as "judicial deference to parliamentary bodies," which is no longer the case, because even Parliament now, although supreme, has got to

govern itself by the Constitution, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The references are readily available in Maingot: a number of court interferences with parliamentary internal

decision-making, to the extent that that decision does not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all understand that; it has become a day-to-day fact of life for all of us.

It's good to understand that it's not the broader range of parliamentary privilege, that common-law privilege -- common-law, but also derived through the

British North America Act -- that the member wants to deliver to elected trustees and councillors. I appreciate that, because nothing rotted my socks more when I was on city council than these in

camera meetings. I'd say, "Why are we going in camera?" because it didn't fall into one of the three categories of finance, personnel or property. "We're going in camera because people can say

things in camera that they may not feel comfortable saying on the record." For Pete's sake, if you're not comfortable saying it on the record, maybe you shouldn't be saying it.

Let's not use

section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act and the application of the immunity from litigation in

section 7 to other elected officials as an

excuse for gutlessness on the part of elected officials -- please. If you really want something to be said, you've got to say it, and if you're worried about litigation, once again, the fact is

that truth is an absolute defence to libel or slander. If you're unsure whether it's true, then maybe you should be a little more cautious about whether or not you say it.

I understand the broader, overall libel chill phenomenon, so part of the discussion at committee should be around the availability of libel insurance to other

elected officials. Members of the Legislative Assembly have libel insurance by virtue of being elected. That doesn't protect you, insofar as I'm aware, from being sued but it does protect you from

being nibbled to death by ducks, if you will, by virtue of the expense of litigation that may be capricious or downright malicious and designed to silence you, to control you, just because of the

expense of litigation, even though the litigation has no substance.

A committee would be so delightful in this regard because one of the privileges a Parliament has is the power to organize its own affairs internally. Again,

notwithstanding the indication by Mr. Ouellette that he merely wants the immunities in

section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act, it has been a question of whether or not this Parliament, the

source of municipalities by statute, wants to relinquish any control or all control over the manner of proceedings within that municipal structure to the municipality, and whether citizens,

residents of Ontario want to see that done as well, such that they don't have a court of last resort -- to wit, their provincial Parliament -- when they're expressing concern about the conduct of a

municipal council.

I'm pleased to support the legislation. I'll be pleased to tell councillors and other elected officials down in Niagara if and when this receives second

reading. I encourage the member to insist that public hearings on this issue be broad-based because there is the at-first-blush observation but then there are a whole lot of secondary

considerations, little undercurrents, that are worthy of consideration and debate.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I rise to speak to this bill. When I first read the bill, I thought it was a good beginning. I

wished it had been a bit broader in its thinking. I'm only going to speak to it from my particular background. I'm going to share my time with my colleague from Scarborough.

Having been an elected representative for 15 years at the municipal level as a school board trustee, I have some experience to be able to speak in terms of

wanting or not wanting any kind of immunity. I had hoped there would have been another part to the bill. You're right in that with this bill would come immunity, but I looked also for the

obligation, the responsibility for the integrity part. That's what's missing, and I say that quite sincerely.

The governance issue has been an issue for a long period of time at the municipal level. This is not something new. It has always been fascinating to me that

rather than looking at how we could build consensus and work together, we are looking constantly to find ways to protect ourselves from things such as libel. I would think that people who are

speaking to one another or looking for information should be able to do it in such a manner through their governance structure that you don't need to go to the more punitive part. You should be

able to go to a more constructive part.

However, I'm also not naive. I'd been there for a few years and I recognize some of the challenges. I think the member said it himself: You get the people you

elect. I appreciate that, and that's the wonderful thing about democracy. We do in fact get the people we elect.

Having said that, there is nothing that prevents that elected official from, first of all, acting in a responsible way. There's nothing that prevents that

elected official from acting ethically. There's absolutely nothing that prevents that official from working with his or her colleagues to establish rules around how they can work together. There's

certainly nothing that prevents that individual from helping to maintain and establish good working relationships among municipal officials, because, from what I gather in looking at this, the

challenge is within that working relationship. I understand that exists.

There are things you can do municipally, where you can build those structures and put them in place, without having to resort to only the one part of this

bill. If you had brought the other part, I would have been more comfortable because you would then have looked at the whole issue of structuring of governance. Governance at the municipal level,

certainly within the school board, has been an issue for a long period of time. How people act, how they interact and how they establish relationships is a really important way, because no

individual at a school board level has any authority at all. It's only when they act in concert with one another to form a majority that they in fact have any authority, and yet I've seen officials

who have abused that significantly.

You would think we should be looking at how we put in place a better governance structure dealing with all of the issues, not just some of the issues, around

the school board governance issue. We should be looking at ways to be able to say, "If you can't work together, why not?" and how that too can be adopted.

Interestingly enough, to use the particular example, there was information that was not forthcoming and, when called upon, gave the impression that the

individuals were not going to be supportive. There still is freedom of information. You can access that. These are public records. But my first question would be, why did you not try to convince

your other colleagues and make it a requirement of that council that that information come forward? Like most things, there are always two sides to every story. Again, there are rules that are

already established that enable school boards to work that way if they choose to work that way.

For me, putting in libel insurance and immunity doesn't address some of the very serious underlying issues in governance. To me, more important is the issue of

integrity, how, once you are elected, you serve the people. With that obligation, there are those responsibilities that come. How are they defined in this legislation? Only part of it is defined in

it, not the other part, and I think they need to be in concert with one another.

I know that if we just send it to committee, the committee could only deal with one part. You can't amend this to that extent to put in the other. That is a

concern for me, I must admit. So I look at this and I say it's broad and it's got good intent. It covers part of the real challenges that face people on a day-to-day basis when they are trying to

access information. Nobody who is an elected official should be put in a position where they feel they are being bullied. For heaven's sake, we suspend children for that. That's not how we want to

act, out of respect for one another in terms of the governance of that particular municipality, school board or whatever.

I would like to support it, but I can't because I need the other part of it. It's not enough to say it will go off committee and it will come together. I think

what you have is a really good beginning, something we could build on and take a little further around actually looking at the structure of governance in school boards as it enables them, on a

day-to-day basis, to work with their colleagues.

I like your intent, I think it's important, but I would prefer that it had the two parts to it or that it had a broader meaning where it could actually turn

around and say, "How do we work together to make this happen from both the bureaucracy side and the elected side?" At the end of the day, if you don't work together, you're not going to get

anything done. It's really quite simple. If you find yourself at loggerheads on a constant basis where you're feeling threatened on either side -- not just on the member's side but if that

bureaucrat feels threatened as well -- then that's not constructive either.

The whole issue of governance needs to be defined more clearly for me. I think that discussion needs to take place at the municipal level. That's where you

need the really good foundation of, "How do we build? What's really wrong there? What's missing? And what is it that we can do to work with them to make it happen?" Imposing something down may keep

that particular councillor happy, but is it going to keep the bureaucracy happy? I don't know, because there's no immunity for them. So then, do you just turn the bullying around? I certainly would

hope not -- it's not the intent -- but I would like to think that we could find a compromise.

Anyway, I'd like to thank you for bringing this forward. I really do think that it has the merit of something that's worthwhile, but unfortunately, because it

doesn't share the other side, I'm not able to support it.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I want to begin by thanking the member for Oshawa for bringing this bill before us today. He is a

dedicated member of this chamber, and he's actually a very good defenceman, believe it or not, on our parliamentary or legislative hockey team. I'd like to say that I can support this bill -- and I

would, because of his defensive abilities on the ice -- but, unfortunately, I can't say that I can support the bill. Let me explain why.

I think the intent of the bill is very supportable, and as the member defined it this morning and really homed in on exactly what his intent is, I think that's

extremely supportable and it makes sense. Unfortunately, the way the bill is written, it's a little too broad in what it currently captures. I'll explain a little bit what I'm talking about.

The bill states, "An elected member of a council of a municipality or of a school board has the same privileges, immunities and powers as the law confers on a

member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." It sounds simple, but I'm not quite sure what it actually means. It's a little bit too broad. It's unclear as to what this means. It's a little too

unclear for me to support it at this time.

Bill 165 may be intended to deal with the issue of privilege of municipal councillors and I think that's what it's meant to do: to speak to their council

meetings and their proceedings. Unfortunately, it's a little broader in the wording and purports to give municipal councillors all the privileges, immunities and powers as those of members of the

Legislature -- some of the privileges and powers that the member for Niagara Centre spoke to earlier. Again, we really have no idea what that means. It could be interpreted, in the extreme, as

giving school trustees and councillors all the privileges that we have here, including the privilege of coming in here and taking a seat and participating in debates and what not. That's extreme,

but you never know.

If it's reasonably interpreted, however, some of the privileges that we're talking about here would likely include the freedom from being arrested in civil

actions during a session of the Legislature and 20 days before and after a legislative session. I'm not sure why we would want to extend that kind of a privilege to trustees or councillors. That's

clearly not the intent of what the member has put forward, but unfortunately, with the wording that we have before us right now, that would actually be the impact of it.

Ineligibility to sit on a jury: That's something I would support. I've experienced that as a member of council, where I've missed a good part of an important

council meeting because I had to do jury duty. That is something I believe we're immune from, but maybe that's something we should perhaps consider for school trustees; certainly for

councillors.

The rights and powers of a court for inquiring into and punishing members for a variety of behaviours: I'm not sure how that would apply to members of council

or trustees, or whether, in fact, it should.

The right to expel members from the Legislature: I don't think that's something we would want to give our local councillors the right to do. Certainly, that

could create problems for many of us. I know it would have for the previous government while I was a councillor.

Some of these are obscure rights. It may well be that we should extend or consider extending some of these privileges and rights, but I'm not sure how some of

these could apply or be relevant to elected officials, whether they be trustees or councillors.

Before I could vote in favour of this bill, I'd need to know what privileges we're talking about here and consider what is and is not appropriate to pass on to

those local representatives. It would have to be, I think, written into the legislation to ensure that that's there. Now, if this bill was intended to deal only with the issue of privilege -- and

that appears to be what the member intends -- the bill still needs to be narrowed in its scope so that it can be made a little more clear.

We have here in this Legislature what they call absolute privilege; councillors have what they call qualified privilege. Our absolute privilege is interpreted

to include statements made at judicial proceedings; statements made by one officer of the state to another; statements made in parliamentary and legislative proceedings; fair and accurate newspaper

or broadcast reports of court proceedings. I'm not sure whether the intent would be to extend privilege for members of council or trustees to all of these four -- maybe it would be; maybe it should

be -- but it's something I think we'd have to look at in terms of the details to see whether all four of those are appropriate.

I was a city of Toronto councillor for Scarborough for nine years, and I haven't seen a circumstance come before me or come to my attention where this was

something that was very urgent or a problem. However, the member did raise an issue that has come to his attention, and just because there may not be a hue and cry for reforms in this area, it

doesn't mean that the suggestions the member's coming forward with don't have merit and it doesn't mean we shouldn't give it some consideration.

That's why I say to the member for Oshawa that there is some merit to what he's suggesting. There may be some good ideas in there. I would strongly recommend,

as we're reviewing the Municipal Act, which we are right now, that he bring those ideas a little more specifically, the specific changes he'd like to see, to the attention of the minister or even

forward it to me in writing if he likes, and we'll certainly make sure this gets full consideration as we go through consideration of the Municipal Act. I think the member does have some good

ideas, it does have merit in what he's bringing forward here, and his statements today brought some comfort to me that I think I know now what he's trying to accomplish. I'd be happy to work with

him to try to achieve that as we go forward looking at changes to the Municipal Act. I don't think that would be all that difficult to try to achieve.

Again, I thank the member for bringing this forward. It's commendable; it's laudable. Because of the way the bill is written -- and I'm not trying to find a

way not to support this. In fact, last night, when I looked at this, I was trying to find a way to support it, and unfortunately I just couldn't because it was just a little bit too broad. But I'd

be happy to work with the member in the future, if this does not pass here today, to see if there's another way we can fulfill the intent that he set out to accomplish here today.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to rise and participate in this debate on Bill 165, brought forward by my colleague from Oshawa. I

want to commend him, first of all, for taking this initiative, as is typical of the member, in response to an issue that was brought to him by a constituent. This bill before us today is in

response not to a theoretical issue but to a very practical issue that is being faced by someone who, on the one hand, is attempting to provide public service and, on the other hand, is finding

obstruction in doing that.

I must say that when I first saw the bill, I had some of the concerns that are being expressed by some of our colleagues, because it is in fact written in a

very broad context. When we talk about extending privilege, it is something that we as members of Parliament, provincially as well as federally, take very seriously.

I want to read into the record Erskine May's definition of parliamentary privilege. It reads as follows: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar

rights enjoyed by each House collectively ... and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or

individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law."

Marleau goes on to explain that when we speak about the peculiar rights that are extended to members of the Legislature, there are basically four categories:

One is freedom of speech; the other is freedom from arrest in civil actions; the third is exemption from jury duty; and the fourth is exemption from attendance as a witness -- very powerful

exemptions.

Specifically with regard to the issue of freedom of speech, I want to again make reference, to provide some context, to a ruling by Speaker Fraser on the issue

of this very important privilege that members of the Legislature are extended when it comes to that category of freedom of speech. That ruling is stated as follows:

"There are only two kinds of institutions in this land to which this awesome and far-reaching privilege ... extends -- Parliament and the Legislatures on the

one hand and the courts on the other. These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be

asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited."

He goes on in his ruling to talk about the important aspect of these matters of privilege. What is important to me is the clarification that the member from

Oshawa has presented to the House this morning in terms of his intent with regard to this legislation. He has very clearly stated in his address that he wants not to extend those broad privileges

that members of the Legislature and Parliament have but, rather, that they be limited to

section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act. And those are in fact very narrow. I want to read that into the

record for the benefit of members. It states as follows:

"A member of the assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing the member

brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said before the assembly or a committee thereof."

This goes to the heart of the member's intent with regard to this bill. I am disappointed to hear the members from Etobicoke Centre as well as Mississauga

West, I believe it was, who said that while they agree with the intent of this bill, they find they cannot support it because it doesn't go far enough, doesn't have one aspect they would like to

see included or perhaps needs some refinement. I want to remind members of this House that on second reading, the vote in favour of any legislation before us is a vote in principle. It does not

address the specific aspects of a piece of legislation. That's what the next step is for, which is committee. And it is in the context of those committee hearings that we can then refine the

legislation. If it's found that the legislation doesn't work, for whatever practical or legal reasons, as a result of the debate we have in committee, then of course it wouldn't be referred to the

House for third reading.

I do believe that the member has addressed something very important, and that is that he wants to ensure that members who are elected to the municipal level of

government, who take their seats at the council chamber in representation of their constituents, can do so without impediment; that they can do so with a sense of freedom; that they can, whether

it's requesting information from staff, whether it is making statements and calling on certain truths to be tabled so that they can more effectively deal with the issues before them, whether it's a

member of a board of trustees in our school board or whether it is a member of council -- surely in this place, we should do what we can to empower those individuals, to protect those individuals

from in any way being prohibited from doing their jobs.

So I encourage this House to pass this bill on second reading, which is before us today. Refer it to committee so that we can discuss all those details that

the member has indicated, issues that have been raised by our colleagues in this House. I will be supporting it for that reason. I believe, in principle, the member has it right. Now it's up to

this House to ensure that we deal with this legislation in committee to ensure that the details are dealt with accordingly.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to be here today to speak to the private member's bill, Bill 165,

An Act to provide

elected members of municipal councils and school boards with certain privileges, immunities and powers. I think the explanatory note says it all: "The purpose of the bill is to extend to elected

members of municipal councils and school boards those privileges, immunities and powers presently enjoyed by members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

I would like to congratulate my colleague Jerry Ouellette, the member for Oshawa, for bringing forth this legislation, which he introduced in the House last

December. I will be supporting this legislation as well.

First of all, I want to say that I was pleased to see that the bill was circulated to municipalities across the province. I know that two of the larger

municipalities in my riding, the town of Midland and the city of Orillia, both supported this bill. I have a lot of confidence in the workings of those two municipal councils and the staff that

work for the towns of Midland and Penetanguishene. I also understand that the member for Oshawa received support from the township of Ramara on this private member's bill as well. I'm not sure what

other ones came in from my municipality.

Mr. Speaker, as you probably are aware, a lot of us in this House have been members of municipal councils over the years. I myself had 18 and a half years in

municipal council work, and I felt that as a municipal council member I worked just as hard at doing my job as a councillor, a reeve and a deputy mayor as I do representing the people as an MPP, if

you look at the responsibilities we have.

I think the errors and omissions aspect of the legislation is what bothers me. There is a certain protection we have in this assembly, and we get that

protection during all the debate times, during question period. As you know and as the member brought forward, those same privileges are not extended to municipal council members and a lot of

people on school boards as well. I think they deserve that right.

People who are on municipal councils -- most of them are not full-time jobs. In a lot of cases, these people run businesses, they are teachers, they belong to

other professions. A lot of people join municipal councils as a result of their strong support for and love of their communities. They want to make their community, whether it's a township, a city

or a small village, a better place to live. I think in a lot of cases, because they don't have the privileges that are extended to the 103 MPPs here, that may be a reason why people would not run

for an elected position on some of the councils. That is hindering the process in a certain way. Just because of this aspect alone, we might be turning our back on a lot of very good elected

officials across this province who may like to run.

I don't see what the downside of this is. I would hope that every member in this House would be here to support this legislation. I'd like to see it go to

committee and have a lot of people come to that committee. Let's have members from AMO, ROMA and the Ontario Good Roads Association come to those meetings and discuss this. I'm sure we'd get

support from all those organizations. I don't know that for a fact; maybe the member for Oshawa, in his wrap-up, can mention whether he's talked to AMO on this particular piece of legislation. I

would think they would support that. This would be something that could be lobbied for right on the floor of the annual convention of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I know the member has looked into this. He has talked to a number of stakeholders. As I said earlier, I was pleased he had taken the time to write to

municipalities to see what their response would be to his bill. From everything I've read here, I'd say that he's had a very positive response and that the members of municipal councils and the

administrators of municipalities would want the Parliament of Ontario to support this private member's bill.

I've said it before in this House: Some really important legislation is passed through this House. This is one of them: helping to protect our municipal

councils. I think of Mr. Gravelle's bill on the insulin pump. That's a bill I'm sure should be passed through this House. We seem to introduce it in each Parliament and it dies on the floor. The

Ministry of Health gets their hands on that bill and we never hear of it again. But I can tell you that in my riding, Bill 55 is an important bill. We have a number of people who require insulin

pumps, and the funding is not available through the health care system to allow them to have that. As a result, the lobby continues, but nothing is done about it.

As I said earlier, I think that in private member's hour we often turn these bills down; we often don't see them go to committee. This is an opportunity today

to prove I'm wrong in that assumption. Let all the members of this House support Bill 165 and move it forward through the committee hearings. We've done a lot worse. The bring-your-own-wine bill,

for example, is really a nothing bill. The marijuana grow-op bill isn't too important. There's all kinds of legislation that we've debated here that hasn't had the impact this could have on our

fellow politicians across the province.

So I would ask every member in this House to support this. I hope the member can see it brought forward to committee hearings and passed into law as early as

the spring of this year.

With that, I'll be happy to thank you for this opportunity to stand here today and speak in favour of this bill. I congratulate the member from Oshawa for

bringing forth such an important bill to help municipal governments across this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Oshawa, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Ouellette: We, as members, have been granted a privilege and an honour. We are all honourable members. I want to thank the members from

Niagara Centre, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Scarborough Centre, Oak Ridges and Simcoe North for their comments today.

In this bill, there are some not-defined areas -- as I've expressed, and even the member from Niagara Centre -- that need to be refined and defined. I'm hoping

that, through the committee process that can take place, we can take this to committee to get a fleshed-out bill, fully discuss the impact and give those municipalities that have that concern -- I

know the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association is meeting in Kenora at the end of this month, and there was huge support from the municipalities in the north. I fully expect there will be

something come forward at that municipal meeting in that part of the province at that time.

The intent in bringing this forward was, as specifically stated under the Legislative Assembly Act, to extend the privileges of speech. I'll read it again:

"37. A member of the Assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing the member

brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said before the assembly or a committee thereof."

I'm hoping the members here will enable it to move forward to the committee process so that there's full and complete debate, so that we can actually develop

the bill if, in their eyes, it doesn't fulfill the needs they feel are there, and so that we can move forward with a bill that will help us and our municipal and elected school board trustees in

providing better, more informed debate, and give those individuals the ability to better represent their constituents as well.

I thank all for the opportunity to debate this bill today.

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

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT

LE CONSOMMATEUR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will first deal with ballot item number 57, standing in the name of Mr. Ruprecht.

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

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to have this referred to the committee on finance and economic

affairs, if I might.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ruprecht has asked that this be sent to the standing committee on finance. Agreed? Agreed.

ELECTED OFFICIALS

IMMUNITY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES ÉLUS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 58, standing in the name of Mr. Ouellette.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1155 to 1200.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ouellette has moved ballot item number 58. All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Leal, Jeff

Martel, Shelley

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Rinaldi, Lou

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Duguid, Brad

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Marsales, Judy

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Patten, Richard

Peterson, Tim

Ramal, Khalil

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Van Bommel, Maria

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 16; the nays are 22.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent of the House to allow members to

wear this yellow ribbon in recognition of the Canadian Cancer Society and the fight against cancer.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent to wear the yellow ribbon? We have unanimous consent.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today to draw to the attention of all members of this House and to all the citizens of our province

the uncertainty that will be faced by the 340 residents of Huronia Regional Centre and their families when the Orillia facility is closed. We have now received thousands of signatures from citizens

from across our province asking the government to carefully reconsider what has become a decision that clearly is a mistake and has no plan behind it.

On Saturday, April 9, between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., the Huronia Helpers Family Organization will meet at the Royal Canadian Legion in Orillia to discuss further

intentions. These friends and family members are afraid for their loved ones who reside at the Huronia Regional Centre. Most of the residents have very special needs, are elderly and have called

HRC their home for most of their lives.

I have visited the HRC many times over the last few months. The facility is clean, neat, and its residents live in family-like units, not in the jail cell

atmosphere that some would make you believe is the case. The 680 employees who care for the residents in a very kind and professional manner are part of the culture of Orillia and area. Their

payroll contributes $29 million to the local community.

Although I support the mandate and intent of community living associations, I still feel that there is a need to accommodate the residents with very special

needs who continue to live in the three remaining facilities. I urge all Ontarians to support the continuation of HRC by signing petitions and by telling Dalton McGuinty that the closure of HRC was

not part of his 2003 election platform.

LE PAPE JEAN-PAUL II

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): C'est un monde en deuil, et demain Rome s'apprête à accueillir plus de deux

millions de personnes aux funérailles du Saint-Père, le Pape Jean-Paul II.

Au nom de tous les citoyens et citoyennes de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, je désire me joindre à la population entière afin de réitérer

nos profonds sentiments d'angoisse, d'amour, de vénération et de respect pour cette sainte personne, la pierre angulaire de la religion catholique, qui s'acharnait constamment à

resserrer les liens entre toutes les dénominations religieuses.

Notre Saint-Père était un grand défenseur des droits de la personne, ayant un profond amour et une dévotion incontestable pour la jeunesse.

Doté d'un charisme hors de l'ordinaire, il instillait en nous des sentiments de paix, d'amour et d'amitié.

Je ne peux que me remémorer avec émotion sa visite à Ottawa en 1984, alors qu'avec mes confrères Sires Chevaliers, nous formions la garde

d'honneur du Saint-Père Jean-Paul II, et sa visite à Toronto en 2002, alors qu'avec plus de 200 personnes de Prescott et Russell, nous avons pris part à des activités sur le

terrain. Là, comme l'ensemble des gens, j'ai été fortement touché par sa force spirituelle et humanitaire.

Votre Sainteté, nous garderons toujours en nous votre éloquente présence, bref, cette personnalité majestueuse.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Children and young people with autism and severe mental and physical disabilities brought together Christians

and Jews at an historic event last night.

Major General Doron Almog, former head of the Israel Defence Forces' southern command, whose 21-year-old son, Eran, is autistic, characterized the event as a

gathering of "the strongest for the weakest."

The event, whose honorary chair Gerry Schwartz, raised in excess of $400,000 in support of the Aleh Negev project in Israel, where children and young adults

with autism receive compassionate care and benefit from rehabilitation therapies.

Present at the event was the Israeli Vice Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, who praised supporters for demonstrating in such a tangible way that they care for

the human needs of people.

I was honoured to be in attendance at this event. I was inspired by the support for the Aleh Negev project and the generosity of the supporters. It was

heartwarming to see what is being done for autistic children in Israel.

But as a member of this Legislature, I also felt a sense of shame for our own province, because rather than forging similar coalitions and demonstrating

political and moral leadership on behalf of autistic children, our Premier, Dalton McGuinty, and his government are refusing to provide even the basic care and therapies ordered by the Ontario

Superior Court.

I call on this Premier and this government to reassess their priorities.

LITERACY TESTS

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): It is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the literacy achievements of hard-working students in

my riding. The C.D. Howe Institute recently released a study of Ontario schools that wrote the Education Quality and Accountability Office tests. The grade 3 test performance of Driftwood Public

School in the Jane and Finch area has put them in the top 10% of schools in the province.

Driftwood stands as testimony that students can obtain success once given proper instruction and the necessary pooled resources. Effectual results came from

collaboration between teachers, leadership from the principal, outreach to parents and literacy programs.

Teachers at Driftwood do not allow excuses such as poverty or living in high-rises for poor performance levels. The teachers at Driftwood inspire their

students and motivate them to learn. They are an example for all schools to follow. The tough love and discipline implemented by the teachers and principal have been rewarded with a 64% student

passing rate. I am confident that the continuing work at Driftwood will mean that next year even more students will achieve a high level in reading and writing.

I applaud the positive forward steps taken by the McGuinty government. They are much needed with respect to the funding allocations for our community schools,

such as $3 million for community use of school initiatives; $175 million to address the Good Places to Learn initiative; and the very important primary class size initiative, which has been

designated over $12 million.

I congratulate Driftwood and I hope they will continue to do and deliver excellent work in our area.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Over the last several days, the Premier and the Minister of Health have been playing fast and loose

with the facts around their illegal health tax.

People in good faith believed Dalton McGuinty when he looked into the camera during the last election and said, "I will not raise your taxes," but in his first

budget he broke that promise, and since then he has broken many more. From the solemn pledge to fund the treatment of autistic children to his pledge that he would freeze hydro rates, this Premier

has demonstrated that he simply can't be trusted. Each day he comes in here and plays the people of Ontario for fools.

The Premier's lack of a plan for health care has put the system the people of Ontario depend on in jeopardy. Just this morning, his health minister said that

hospitals will offer fewer services in the future, and further from home. This government is spending their illegal health tax dollars this year alone on fewer hospital services, firing 757 nurses

or buying back MRIs that were already providing services to patients with an OHIP card.

John Tory has made a commitment to return the money that has been taken illegitimately from the people of Ontario. John Tory will not take one cent out of

health care. John Tory has promised to spend health care dollars wisely and get down to the real hard work of finding waste in government, something this government refuses to do. John Tory and the

Ontario PC Party will replace the Liberals' illegal health tax with a competent government that has a plan for health care.

DAYCARE

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Well, well, Tories advocating for public health care. I've seen everything.

We have with us today a number of people from across Ontario who are here to lobby members of this assembly to talk about moving forward on the daycare issue.

We know that, in the previous election, the Liberal government -- at the time in opposition -- came forward and said they were going to do something. What have they done? The federal government

said, "Listen, we're prepared to put forward $300 million to assist you, the province of Ontario, to develop a daycare program."

The government announced that they've got this wrap-around program. They're going to deal with four- and five-year-olds only. Well, children are not just four

and five years old. It's from birth up to grade 12 -- I should say age 12; sometimes I think grade 12 -- that we need to have daycare programs for our children.

This government still does not want to commit itself to making sure that whatever expansion we make in the daycare system is done in the not-for-profit sector

and that we move away from the policy of the Conservative government that moved us into the private sector when it comes to daycare.

I say to the government, you need to start to show your colours. You certainly spoke a good line when you were in opposition, you certainly spoke a good line

in the last election, but when it comes to your being in office, it's the litany of broken promises that we have seen from this government since the day they were elected -- making promises before

the election sounding like New Democrats, but reigning like Tories.

WINCHESTER DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It is with great pride that I rise today and acknowledge the outstanding efforts of the

Winchester District Memorial Hospital's Renewing the Vision campaign and the generosity of the late Francis Bazinet.

While the House was in recess, the campaign announced that it had raised $15 million toward the redevelopment of the hospital. Considering that Winchester is a

small community without the resources of cities like Toronto or Ottawa, this is a remarkable achievement. In addition to the $15 million in provincial funding, this money will allow for

improvements in emergency, operating and patient care rooms. This will ensure that state-of-the-art equipment and quality treatment will continue to be available to the residents of Winchester and

the surrounding area.

The Winchester District Memorial Hospital first opened its doors to the community in 1948, with the mandate to "relieve human suffering." For more than half a

century, it has held true to that mandate, providing health care service to more than 27,000 people annually. The dedication of Winchester's health care professionals inspired the late Mr. Bazinet

to bequeath over $900,000 to the Renewing the Vision campaign.

The people of Winchester have a strong sense of community and a determination to keep their community strong. Thanks to the donations of people like Mr.

Bazinet, a revitalized Winchester District Memorial Hospital will be ready to continue its mandate, providing the community with the best of health care for another half century and beyond.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): There was more good news for our province yesterday, with the announcement of an additional $37 million in

funding for apprenticeship programs across Ontario. This announcement illustrates our government's ongoing commitment not only to Ontario's apprentices but also to our province's future economic

success.

For my community, it will have a positive effect through the support it offers Conestoga College. Yesterday's announcement will mean over $1.3 million for the

college. I want to applaud the good work being done at Conestoga College to train the next generation of tradespeople.

Yesterday's news complements a number of other initiatives announced in the past few months by the Ontario Women's Directorate. For example, on February 25, we

announced that we would provide nearly $200,000 in funding to allow up to 20 unemployed and low-income women to receive pre-apprenticeship training in general carpentry at the Guelph campus of

Conestoga College.

Shortly thereafter, it was announced that Conestoga College would receive an additional $360,000 grant to deliver an information technology certificate

program. This grant is also geared to unemployed or low-income women, new immigrants with IT skills and women with disabilities.

As employees in skilled trades, women have been underrepresented too long. These initiatives demonstrate a commitment to our tradespeople and to creating a

more inclusive workforce for a strong economic future.

RWANDAN GENOCIDE

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I rise today in recognition of the Rwandan genocide memorial day, a day when the world remembers

unspeakable horror.

In 1994, racial hatred and genocide stalked Rwanda, leaving 800,000 people dead in just 100 days. As the world stood by and watched, Hutu militias killed as

many as 10,000 Tutsis a day, face to face, with clubs and machetes. The number is more incomprehensible when we consider that Rwanda has just seven million people, about the same number that live

in the Golden Horseshoe.

The world's silence is difficult to comprehend.

Today I invite my fellow Ontarians and all the members of the Legislature to remember this tragedy in Rwanda. I also invite you to reflect on three qualities

that we may take for granted here: dignity of life, respect for equality, and the value of our diversity. These qualities form the basis of life in Ontario.

We live in one of the most culturally diverse societies that humankind has ever known, from hundreds of different heritages and backgrounds, yet sharing one

common vision: a vision of equality for everyone, where everyone can contribute to their potential and make their dreams come true. That is the vision we are all striving for. That is the dream

called Ontario.

We must be ever vigilant against the nightmare of intolerance. Today, let us join with people around the world and say that we will never let ourselves be

silent to such cries again.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to seek unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill

170, the Fred Gloger Tenant Protection Amendment Act (Vital Services), on behalf of tenants at 355 Melvin Avenue in Hamilton, in order to restore their disconnected gas, heat, hot water, washers

and dryers, that they have --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. I got the information. Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr Prue moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 184,

An Act to require the Building Code and the Fire Code to provide for fire detectors, interconnected fire alarms and non-combustible fire escapes /

Projet de loi 184, Loi exigeant que le code du bâtiment et le code de prévention des incendies prévoient des détecteurs d'incendie, des systèmes d'alerte d'incendie

interconnectés et des sorties de secours incombustibles.

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

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): This bill contains two provisions, and I think they are two very common sense provisions. The first is

that all of the fire alarms in any existing structure that has more than two units within the building must be interconnected, so that if one fire alarm goes off, the other does. The second one, I

think, is self-evident: The fire escapes cannot be made of combustible material, as most of them are in Ontario, so that a person going down the fire escape knows that they're not going to be

burned alive.

VISITORS

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to recognize in the gallery today the mother, brothers, sister

and grandparents of our page Peter Entecott.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I believe I have unanimous content to put forward a motion without notice

regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent, as the House leader has requested? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that, pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 61.

The Speaker: Mr. Duncan has moved that, pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 61. Is it the pleasure of the House

that the motion carry? Carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Premier. At a news conference this morning, your health minister made a

shocking admission and revealed what appears to be the true plan you have for hospitals in Ontario. He said, and I quote, that your government would "extricate and consolidate" services from

hospitals, and he said that hospitals will not operate with as broad a range of services as they currently do. Premier, specifically, what services is your health minister stripping from our

hospitals?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm pleased to take the question, and I know that in the

supplementaries the minister will want to speak to this.

Let me just tell you about the record. Rather than speculating about the future, let me tell you a bit about the record. We have been very proud to invest $1.7

billion more in our hospitals this past year alone. We're now working with our hospitals to help them balance their budgets by 2006, and half of them, I believe, have already done that. So we are

pleased and proud to be able to make that investment.

I want to compare and contrast, because it's important for the people of Ontario. The Tories cut $557 million over two years from Ontario hospitals. They

closed 28 hospitals. They closed 5,000 beds in their first two years. A legacy of cuts; compare and contrast that with a legacy of new investment, new and better health care for the people of

Ontario.

Mrs. Witmer: The Premier knows it is not true. Our government added about $10 billion to the health care budget. We increased access to

cardiac care, cancer care, dialysis, MRIs. It is simply incorrect.

I say to you, Premier, just yesterday a report commissioned by your government was released that talked about wait times. Earlier this week, you refused to

commit to meeting recommended wait times that were released by the Canadian Medical Association. Well, today we know why. Your health minister said this morning that hospitals are not going to be

delivering in the future the level of services they do today. Premier, tell the patients in Ontario what hospital services you'll be cutting, and also let us know about your hidden agenda, just as

your health tax was a hidden agenda.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The most energy I'm expending right now is restraining the Minister of Health, who wants to get in on this. But I want the

opportunity to speak to this.

What the minister did talk about was our responsibility to look for ways that we might consolidate surgical services. We don't believe it's efficient to do hip

and knee replacements, for example, in 57 places across the province of Ontario. We should be looking at the best and most effective ways to use the limited number of health dollars that we have.

But what we have done -- and the member opposite will know this -- is spend $107 million specifically to reduce wait times. We have 1,680 more hip and knee replacement surgeries happening as a

result of that investment, 1,700 more cancer surgeries, 7,800 more cardiac procedures, 2,000 more cataract procedures. So if people want to know where we're going, they should take a look at what

we've done thus far. Our plan is to make new investments in health care in order to reduce wait times.

Mrs. Witmer: I would say to the Premier, you're not going to be reducing wait times by using your illegal health tax to fire 757 nurses, as

you have just done. I say to you again, your minister this morning said that the McGuinty Liberals will "extricate and consolidate" services from hospitals. In other words, people in this province

are paying more because of your illegal health tax and they're going to get fewer hospital services.

Let's take a look, Premier, at the Lake of the Woods hospital in Kenora. It's 482 kilometres from the Thunder Bay regional health centre. That is a long way. I

want you to guarantee the citizens in Kenora and hundreds of other communities that you won't cut their hospital services and that you're not going to force them to drive for five, six or even 10

hours to receive the treatment that they need and deserve.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: This is blatant scaremongering. Obviously, we're going to take into account regional differences and distances and driving

time and the like. But I want to remind Ontarians that this member speaks on behalf of a party which is committed to removing $2.4 billion from health care. We've invested that money in order to

provide better quality services to the people of Ontario.

I ask the member opposite: What would be wrong, for example, if we consolidated all of our cataract surgeries into one location in downtown Toronto instead of

all the various institutions that are offering that service at present? How would that be contrary to the interests of Ontario patients? How would it be contrary to the interests of our doctors?

How would it be contrary to the interests of taxpayers who are working hard to fund good-quality public services? I think this very member would agree with that approach. I think the people of

Ontario want us to find ways to consolidate services in a way that does not compromise the quality of their health care. That's exactly what we intend to do.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Again, to the Premier, and unfortunately, we have yet another example of this Premier's questionable

judgment. After no movement for six months on the environmental spills bill, suddenly it was referred to committee this week without having any debate in this House. This is the same bill for which

your top political fixer, Warren Kinsella, is receiving big cheques as a lobbyist from those opposed to the bill. Premier, why did you allow Warren Kinsella to attend your cabinet meeting on March

23, the date you discussed this legislative session? Do you not see a massive conflict of interest here?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can appreciate the inference that the member opposite would like

Ontarians to draw from this, but I can assure you that Mr. Kinsella did not in any way, shape or form broach that particular topic of Bill 133. I'm not sure why the member opposite would draw a

negative inference from our determination to send Bill 133 out to committee. Would he have us keep this in-house? Would he have us adopt their particular approach, which was contrary to openness

and transparency? We think the people of Ontario have something to offer when it comes to improving the quality of our legislation, so we're proud to take this bill and put it out to committee.

Mr. Runciman: We don't mind it going to committee; we just want to know the reasons behind this massive flip-flop.

This is how it looks to those who weren't in your cabinet meeting: First, your Chrétien-era crony strategist -- the man who, according to the Ottawa

Citizen article, recommended Chuck Guité be put in charge of the federal sponsorship program -- registers in March to represent those opposed to your bill. A week later, he was invited to

attend your cabinet meeting where you discussed this legislative session. Media saw him walk in; he was there. Then, suddenly, you send this bill to committee before any debate in the House,

indicating you're prepared to make substantive changes to your flawed legislation.

Premier, Warren Kinsella wants to see this bill die. He's being paid to ensure that happens. How can you possibly justify this conflict o