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

September 10, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Sep-10 (PDF)

L055 - Tue 10 Sep 2013 / Mar 10 sep 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 10 September 2013 Mardi 10 septembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

SCHOOL SAFETY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

POWER PLANTS

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

CYBERBULLYING

ARBITRATION

HYDRO CHARGES

GROWTH PLANNING

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

VISITOR

DEFERRED VOTES

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WIND TURBINES

EVENTS IN PARKDALE–HIGH PARK

TOUR FOR HUMANITY

WIND TURBINES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

KRISHNA JANMASHTAMI

BEER AND WINE SALES

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NATURAL GAS

SUPERHIGHWAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’AUTOROUTE

DU GAZ NATUREL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WORLD SUICIDE PREVENTION DAY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

SHALE BEACH

MINING INDUSTRY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

MARKDALE HOSPITAL

HYDRO RATES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

LONG-TERM CARE

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HOME CARE

LYME DISEASE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

Ms. MacCharles moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to strengthen consumer protection with respect to consumer agreements relating to wireless services accessed from a cellular phone, smart phone or any other similar mobile device / Projet de loi 60, Loi visant à mieux protéger les consommateurs en ce qui concerne les conventions de consommation portant sur les services sans fil accessibles au moyen d’un téléphone cellulaire, d’un téléphone intelligent ou de tout autre appareil mobile semblable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. MacCharles has moved second reading of Bill 60. Ms. MacCharles.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very pleased to rise to speak to this bill this morning. I’ll be sharing my time later with the Honourable David Orazietti, the Minister of Natural Resources.

This act, the Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2013, is a critical step forward as we strengthen protections for consumers in an area that affects more than 80% of Ontario’s population.

I will begin by setting the groundwork for how far we’ve come in protecting consumers and the families of Ontario in the area of consumer protection. Last spring, our government introduced the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2013. This bill is before the House and I’m pleased that it seems to be moving forward. In fact, I think we’re having a deferred vote on it later this morning. The introduction of Bill 55 met a commitment made by our government’s speech from the throne, a commitment about strengthening the rights of Ontario consumers and working to ensure a fair, safe and transparent marketplace.

When introducing the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, I outlined how it proposes to address four very important areas of consumer protection. Just to recap briefly, the bill would, first, curb aggressive high-pressure door-to-door sales tactics, especially for the sale or rental of water heaters. Secondly, it will protect vulnerable indebted consumers against misleading and abusive practices of some companies that offer debt settlement services.

Third, it will provide stronger safeguards to strengthen the integrity of real estate multiple-offer practices and, fourth, give home sellers more power to negotiate flexible lower-cost arrangements when using a real estate professional. This package of consumer protection reforms addresses some key areas of Ontario’s marketplace and would make the marketplace fairer, provide more choice to the people of this great province and boost consumer confidence.

Since that announcement, we’ve moved forward on several initiatives in this area, and we’re eager to achieve the passage of the legislation to begin improving protections for Ontario consumers and to move that as quickly as possible, Speaker. But our efforts to improve consumer protection for Ontario consumers have not stopped there.

Less than two weeks after announcing the wide-ranging legislation I’ve just outlined, I introduced legislation to protect the rights of Ontario consumers in one more very significant sector of the marketplace: cellphones and wireless service agreements. Today, I’m leading off second reading debate on this important piece of legislation.

People in Ontario want and deserve clarity in their agreements with wireless companies. In the same spirit of clarity, we want to be clear about the protections for Ontario consumers that they would get from our proposed Wireless Services Agreements Act. We are talking about clear cellphone contracts, Speaker. We want consumers to have a clear understanding of what a cellphone contract will cost. We want wireless providers to be clear about the services their customers have signed up for.

We want consumers to have a clear understanding of their rights when it comes to renewing their existing contracts, and we want consumers to know their rights when a service provider does not follow the rules. So we are being clear about the tools available to enforce the rules.

The use of cellphones and wireless communications is pervasive in the province. How pervasive? Consider the fact that over 80% of Ontario’s population uses these devices for texting, talking, playing games, making plans, watching videos or sending emails. For many, they provide the comfort that a call can be made quickly in the case of an emergency.

Many of us are also responsible for paying for these cellphones and wireless devices. No doubt parents in this province pay for the cellphone contracts for many children. I know in my household, my husband and I have the responsibility of looking after cellphone bills for our two teenagers. That responsibility is highlighted at this time of year with the start of school.

Many parents enter into cellphone or wireless service contracts, or people change their cellphone contracts as children head off to school—that could be middle school, secondary school, university or college—because moms and dads and caregivers recognize they want the security of knowing that they can call quickly and check in with their kids very easily.

I know in my family, it has become a way of life. I don’t think there are too many of my children’s friends who do not have some sort of wireless device for communication to stay in touch with parents and, of course, their friends, which sometimes is more important to them, I guess.

Just two weeks ago, my ministry offered some tips to consumers about how to protect their hard-earned money when entering into cellphone contracts in anticipation of the new school year. We received excellent coverage in the media to help spread the message.

In addition to cellphone contracts for our children, many of us are helping our aging parents with their cellphone contracts and bills, and we may be paying for those services.

We can see right here in the Legislature, Speaker, how many MPPs rely on these wireless devices. Some of us have one cellphone, some of us have two, and some of us have three cellphones, between our government-issued ones, our personal ones—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: We have too many.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: One of the members opposite said we have too many cellphones.

Some people are consolidating different cellphone accounts into one or more different types of devices. I think we can see right here in the Ontario Legislature how dependent we are on this kind of technology to do our jobs.

Regardless of one’s age, regardless of one’s occupation, people seem to love these devices and services. What they don’t love, however, are the surprises: the contract confusion and sometimes poor customer service. Just consider the results of a report released earlier in March of this year by the advocacy group called OpenMedia.ca. In an OpenMedia.ca survey, almost 3,000 cellphone users shared their views on their relationship with their cellphone provider.

According to the report, entitled Time for an Upgrade: Demanding Choice in Canada’s Cell Phone Market, a majority of Canadian respondents reported “being forced into accepting poor—often disrespectful—service.” The study encouraged policy-makers to insist, among other things, that providers provide fair contracts along with transparency and service offerings, pricing and bundled services.

Consider another perspective on the level of customer service in the cellphone market. Earlier this year, the federal Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunication Services noted a 250% rise in complaints over the past four years, with wireless sector complaints accounting for more and more of the commissioner’s workload.

And while the Open Media study and the complaints commissioner’s report are both national in scope, they shed light on many of the consumer concerns that have come to light in Ontario’s cellphone market. In our province, people are entering into contracts thinking they’ve understood what they’re paying for, only to gaze at their bill every month—and they do that with some confusion, Speaker. The bottom line is that many Ontario cellphone and wireless services consumers do not properly understand what they’re paying for.

They do not have a clear understanding of what the contract states because their contracts are confusing and unclear. We’ve heard that repeatedly, and we aim to change that. I know sometimes there’s just too much information on a cellphone contract, so it’s hard for consumers to read the most important parts of what they’ve signed up for in such a contract.

Ontario consumers deserve easy-to-understand cellphone contracts with no hidden costs. Only on that basis can they shop around to find the services that suit their needs best at the lowest cost. Only when consumers fully understand what they are agreeing to in their cellphone and wireless services contracts can they comparison shop and make an informed decision about the type of service or service bundles they want, and at a price they agree to. Only when our marketplace supports open, fair and transparent pricing will consumers truly be able to shop for the best deal on their cellphones and wireless services.

Our proposed legislation would help to ensure that when Ontario’s consumers enter into a cellphone and wireless services contract, they are indeed fully informed. The legislation would, if passed, ensure that consumers have a number of protections: first, clear, written contracts that spell out which services come with the basic fee and which services result in extra charges. Second, it would include the right to be asked if they agree or consent to the renewal of their fixed-term agreement. Third, it would include the ability to walk away from their contracts at any time with limits on cancellation fees.

Next, it would include the right to sue the supplier for three times the amount of that that is owed to the consumer, if the consumer is owed a refund and the company is refusing to pay. Finally, it would include the benefits of all-inclusive price advertising.

Consumers would receive one contract that spells out clearly the terms and costs they’ve agreed to, and companies would have to provide clear information on such things as roaming costs and when those costs would be incurred. Companies would need to inform consumers whether a cellphone is locked and how long it will remain locked. Suppliers would have to disclose the details of a manufacturer’s warranty on a phone if the consumer is purchasing supplementary warranty coverage.

Since we announced these proposed stronger protections, many people have asked me why the government is reintroducing this legislation similar to the cellphone bill that was introduced during the last session in 2012. The answer’s very simple: This was important to consumers last year and it remains important legislation this year. That’s, I think, evident by what we’ve seen in the media and the pickup and the responses many of us have received as MPPs in support of this legislation.

I want to briefly outline the effect of the changes that are reflected in our current bill. These changes would prohibit service providers from charging consumers for calls made once a phone is reported lost or stolen. Unfortunately, that does happen. I certainly see that with my kids. They’ve lost control of their cellphones from time to time. Sometimes I have to impose some consequences around that, but it would be great if we had that provision that prohibits the providers from charging consumers for calls made once it’s reported lost or stolen. Hopefully it’s lost and it gets retrieved, and it’s not stolen.

Next, the changes would allow the consumers to agree upfront to monthly extensions at the end of a fixed-term contract to avoid loss of their cellphone number.

Finally, they would provide authority for regulations to require service providers to give consumers a personalized contract

summary.

We introduced our bill with these changes because we believe there is a role for the province to play. We wanted to bring this legislation forward to protect Ontarians and because we believe consumers need this protection and the strong enforcement measures and enhanced remedies that are outlined in the bill. That is something we did not see when the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, also known as the CRTC, announced its new national wireless code on June 3 of this year.

That code, which strengthens consumer protection for cellphone users, will come into force in December of this year for all new contracts entered into on or after that date. It will also apply to contracts that are entered into, amended, renewed or extended on or after December 2. That implementation may be in doubt, however, as several carriers have challenged the CRTC code in court. This kind of uncertainty makes it even more important for our legislation provincially to be acted on quickly to protect consumers.

We are pleased that the CRTC code takes important steps in protecting consumers in this province, and in fact across the country. The code does address some issues, for example, such as prepaid phone cards and unlocking of devices. Those are the kinds of provisions that are best suited to federal jurisdiction as opposed to provincial jurisdiction.

I want to be very clear that the province has responsibility for making sure consumer contracts are fair and transparent, and they are necessary protections that are in place for our consumers. We certainly wouldn’t be the first province to implement this kind of legislation.

Our legislation addresses two areas in particular that are not dealt with by the national code. They are all-inclusive price advertising as well as restrictions on unilateral contract amendments. Our proposed legislation would also give consumers the benefit of comprehensive Ministry of Consumer Services enforcement tools to deal with wireless providers who break the rules, unlike the CRTC approach, which is more of an individual complaint enforcement approach.

We must continue to press forward to ensure our consumers are protected. Ontario’s marketplace is dominated by the big three wireless companies. As we know, there was recent speculation and media reports that Verizon might be entering the Canadian marketplace. Verizon’s ultimate decision not to actually reinforces the dominance of what’s happening in this marketplace, and it shows that that is probably not changing. In this environment in particular, strong consumer protections become even more important.

It’s also worth noting that the CRTC itself, when consulting on their draft code, was of the view that a national code could coexist with provincial legislation. So we knew that before we introduced our bill, and that premise, I understand, still exists. So we’re pressing forward here in Ontario.

In a few moments my colleague will be speaking to this bill; he is the Honourable David Orazietti. I do want to thank him publicly for the work he has done in supporting consumers in Ontario. In fact, it was David Orazietti who brought forward earlier versions of this bill and was a tireless advocate for changing the way we protect consumers who are customers of wireless service products.

Our proposed legislation, if passed, would have very strong enforcement measures and remedies for consumers when their rights have been breached. As I mentioned, these cellphone and wireless service remedies and protections are part of a broader initiative in consumer protection initiatives in Ontario. We’re calling it our Ontario consumer package.

We believe our comprehensive approach will strengthen consumer protection and ensure a fair, safe and informed marketplace in Ontario. We have a responsibility to Ontario consumers, and to their families, to ensure that the millions of cellphone agreements signed by Ontario individuals and families each and every year are comprehensive and easy to understand.

This clarity is all about helping people of Ontario to make very confident decisions in the marketplace. We want Ontarians to make informed choices, spend wisely and protect their hard-earned money. I think we can all agree that when we have confident consumers, we help build a stronger Ontario economy. A stronger Ontario economy is something everyone in this province can absolutely support.

I’d like to thank you, Ms. Speaker, for allowing me to speak to this bill. At this point, I’d like to give the floor to my colleague the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, David Orazietti. And I’ll just bridge until he arrives.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The minister may continue.

Hon. David Orazietti: Thank you, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be here today and a pleasure to speak to Bill 60. I want to commend Minister MacCharles for her leadership on this bill, a bill that’s incredibly important to Ontarians.

You’ve heard much about the changes that are necessary to protect consumers from charges and contracts that are unfair and one-sided. I want to continue today on that theme and also to elaborate specifically on some of these changes that would benefit consumers. We certainly welcome support from all sides of the House on this and all parties and certainly hope that they will be unequivocal in their support.

The challenges that consumers have faced—and I go back a number of years ago, when I introduced Bill 133 as a private member’s bill and also Bill 5 as a private member’s bill on this same issue. What we determined in the research and work that we had done at the time was that—for example, a study that was done in 2010 by the New America Foundation determined that out of 11 countries surveyed with respect to cellphone charges, when you look at the three components of your cellphone bill—your voice, your data and your texting in your cellphone—Canada had the highest costs to consumers, significantly higher than a number of other jurisdictions.

That led us to believe that contractual agreements that are signed in the province of Ontario that are clearly the jurisdiction of provincial governments are fair game for provincial legislation to protect consumers. I think that part of the issue stems from the fact that we all recognize that there is a bit of a vacuum at the federal level when it comes to this issue. The CRTC has not issued spectrum licences in a way that would allow adequate competition to take place. We have very limited competition in this country: essentially three large companies controlling 95% of the market share.

We have other brands of cellphones or contracts that individuals can sign. It creates the optics that there are all kinds of choice in the marketplace for the consumer, but the reality isn’t, because when you pick up the phone and you call the customer service contact centre of one of these other companies, you’re really talking to a customer centre run by one of the big three. That puts consumers at a disadvantage.

There is no reason that the contracts that have been shaped the way they’ve been for a number of years with the requirements and the onuses that are put on consumers—they’re not reasonable. They’re excessive. Most consumers understand that the practices have been unhelpful to consumers—lacking choice and punitive in many ways, when you look at some of these cancellation fees that are absolutely horrendous. What kind of environment are we in?

We’re here because this issue is important to Ontarians and we’re here to speak to it because at the federal level there is not the protection for consumers that there needs to be. There has not been the issuing of spectrum for licencing with respect to cellphone companies that there needs to be to allow new entrants into the marketplace to compete, to bring prices down, to make prices more cost-competitive with other jurisdictions. So Canadians and Ontarians go on and on and on paying these excessive charges.

In 2010, when I introduced this private member’s bill, Bill 133, the only province that had consumer protection legislation in place for wireless devices was the province of Quebec, and it had just been passed in June 2010. Following that, Manitoba introduced and passed legislation. Following that, Newfoundland and Labrador introduced and passed legislation. So there are three other provinces in this country that obviously felt the federal government was leaving them in the lurch, so to speak, and consumers in their province needed greater protection.

We’ve seen much conversation around this issue in recent years, as residents in this country look for ways in which their senior levels of government will step up, provide the leadership that’s needed and protect them from the practices of large companies.

We talk about competition issues. We all want to see competition and a better price for consumers. What’s really at stake for these companies is corporate profits. That’s what’s at stake. This is important, that we ensure that from our perspective there are fair and balanced contracts. It’s something that I think we can all understand when it comes to the language in the contracts, for example, where the surveys that have been done with consumers indicate that more than half of consumers don’t understand their contracts.

They’re very onerous; they’re written with legal complexities to them that the average consumer struggles with. So we want to see the contracts in plain language, in simple terms for consumers to understand what is being asked of them.

We also want to see full disclosure of goods and services, various charges that may be incurred, start-up fees and other costs so consumers are certain; there’s not bill shock; they’re not going to get their first bill after they go to that cellphone store, purchase and sign up, they get home, another month goes by, the bill comes in and they say, “Wait a second. I didn’t think it was going to be $150 for this phone; I thought it was going to be $49.99, like the ad said.” So all-in pricing, all-inclusive pricing in the marketplace today—and you see this across all kinds of services, and why it’s important. That’s something we need to be bringing to this sector.

Consent is important with respect to this. We spoke to many consumers over the years on this issue, those who would indicate that they called the company up, they wanted to make a small change to the plan, they were within a few months of their plan elapsing because they entered a three-year contract and they changed jobs or they wanted to add a feature like conference calling or call display, some kind of feature; and all of a sudden they find themselves locked into another three-year term from that point on, which cancelling would be incredibly expensive. These types of tactics are not helpful for consumers.

They’re obviously driven by maximizing profits and extracting the most that they can from the consumer once they get them hooked: “Let’s see how much we can get out of this consumer,” and they go about doing that as best they can. I think that’s why it’s important to ensure that we have the consent piece as part of this legislation.

Cancelling agreements at any time with caps on cancellation fees: This was obviously an issue that many consumers raised, and the ministry has received countless complaints on this subject as a whole, but on this issue specifically with regard to cancellation fees. So I’m certainly pleased to see that the minister has this in here, this $50 maximum cancellation cap. I’ve heard horror stories of individuals paying $400 and $500 to get out of a contract for services that they’re no longer going to need.

Prohibiting charging for services that cannot be accessed when a warranted phone is in for repairs—you don’t have your phone; you don’t have access to it; the company can’t keep billing you, as has been the practice in the past—and protection against billing when the phone is lost or stolen—I heard the minister allude to that earlier, and I think she makes an incredibly important point.

With respect to the bill specifically, I think there are some fantastic protections here for consumers that are included, and I think this is something that we need to move forward with, quickly and expeditiously. Consumers have waited long enough for this type of protection to come about. As I’ve indicated, it has been passed in other provinces as long as three years ago, and yet we still have a challenge federally to see any real, tangible action on this.

When the CWTA, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, speaks about this issue—they have their voluntary code of conduct. That’s what they have. That’s what is supposed to protect consumers: the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association’s voluntary code of conduct. Well, folks, that’s just not good enough for consumers. It doesn’t cut it. The contracts continue to look the way they are, and consumers continue to be gouged by these large companies, so it doesn’t make sense. We obviously need to take more significant steps to protect consumers.

Would we prefer to see a universal code right across the country that creates consistency and fairness for consumers from coast to coast to coast? Yes, of course we would. But failing that, and in this absence of leadership at the federal level when it comes to this issue, we’re prepared to step up.

Again, I commend the minister for her leadership on this. She sees this as an important issue, as does our government, and we want to be protecting consumers on this issue.

Certainly, the message to the CWTA is they need to take it to another level when it comes to the protection of consumers. This voluntary code of conduct, that sees consumers disadvantaged by these contracts, is unacceptable, and that’s the message that is coming from the public. That’s the message that is coming from our government and from other governments across the country.

As far as the CRTC is concerned, they obviously play an important role in the licensing and oversight of telecommunications in this country. What I would say is that they have limited the ability for competition to thrive. They have not released the licensing spectrum that is needed to create competition. The fearmongering that is going on at the federal level about the instability and creating more of a cumbersome type of contract is completely smoke and mirrors.

That’s one of the lines that the CWTA uses: “Any type of legislation that’s passed by provinces is going to be too difficult for us to manage.” The way that they view this is that these costs will be passed on to consumers. It’s a bit of a threat, and we hear that in the language that they use about jurisdictions in this country that they feel should not be stepping into this environment, should just sort of stand down until the federal government—until they work with them to determine what’s desirable.

If they don’t do that, and the provinces decide to step up and they decide to pass legislation, well, then, who knows what could happen to consumers? You could just end up driving up those bills up even further. That’s the kind of approach that the CWTA has taken. It’s unfair; it’s unfounded. It’s unrealistic that consumers should be required to continue to accept that type of approach.

The CRTC needs to move more quickly. They need to open up spectrum. They need to create some opportunities for competition.

We understand, obviously, that the CWTA membership is a powerful lobby group. Bell, Rogers and Telus are powerful players in this sector that monopolize the environment, and they create the playing field that is to their advantage.

As legislators here at Queen’s Park, it’s our obligation to make sure that we balance both the interests of the consumer and business to ensure that business can thrive, business can do well and business can turn a profit. We want to see jobs here in the country. But also, when we look at other jurisdictions and look at the comparison costs of other jurisdictions and what consumers are paying in those jurisdictions for cellphone costs—for voice, data and text, the components that make up your bill—it’s ridiculous. It is ridiculous in this province and in this country what we pay—what the costs should be. So that’s the reason, Speaker, why we’re here today supporting Bill 60.

I think that the consumer advocates that are out there who have made comments publicly around this issue—it speaks volumes. If you take a look at comments by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a report by Michael Janigan highlights the practice of extra charges in the Canadian telecommunications industry, whereby suppliers of consumer product and services segregate part of their costs as a separate charge and then add them to the final price paid by consumer. He speaks to the way in which these costs are manipulated.

He describes these system access fees levied by the phone companies as “charges concocted by the wireless companies to appear as a government … fee.” You have various individuals who have come out and expressed their concern around this.

With respect to the bill, PIAC says that the “bill will help remove barriers to real competition for ordinary consumers of wireless services. It will help level the playing field for customers who ... feel trapped by onerous one-sided conditions.”

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

Don Mercer, who is president of the Consumers Council of Canada—here’s what he said: “Contracts for cellular voice and data services and equipment rate as top-10 sources of consumer complaints in Ontario. Many consumers feel their rights are unfairly limited and find it hard to understand their responsibilities under these agreements. Now this bill in Ontario proposes action as well. Provinces across Canada should take responsibility and prompt action, and ultimately work toward a nationally harmonized approach that recognizes today’s consumers are highly mobile.

The Consumers Council of Canada encourages members of the Ontario Legislature to seriously engage this bill as a practical measure.” There are all kinds of organizations that monitor practices of various companies and how they impact consumers in their daily lives, and clearly there’s consensus on this issue.

We received countless emails from individuals right across the province in our office, talking about, “It’s about time.” The flavour of the emails was that it’s about time that a government in this province stood up for consumers on wireless services and telecommunications and protected them from these contracts that are so one-sided and encouraged the federal government to create a national code that reflects what are really the true costs of delivering these services. “Stop the gouging.”

In my constituency office in Sault Ste. Marie, I’ve sat down with a host of individuals and residents in our community who have brought me examples of their cellphone contracts and their bills. They can’t understand the charges and can’t understand why they’re so significant. I’m not talking about the responsibility of an individual to know what their bill says and what they’ve agreed to and to pay in good faith that bill and be responsible.

No one is excusing consumers or individuals from simply saying, “I’m going to go and I’m going to sign up for a $500 phone, and I’m going to take that with me and I’m going to get it subsidized so I’m going to pay $99 when I walk out the door, and two months later, I’m going to cancel my contract, and I should just be able to keep the phone.” That’s not what we’re talking about. There’s a formula in the bill for reducing and prorating that cost, what the individual would have to pay, what they would be obligated to.

We’re not talking about individuals taking advantage of companies, but when you have such a broad range—and when you’re talking about Ontarians, 80% of Ontarians have some form of mobile device that they’re using. This is a daily feature for people. It has become much more essential than it was five or 10 years ago. This is important to the daily lives of Ontarians. We want to see contracts worded in such a way that individuals in this province can understand them, that they don’t need to go and get legal counsel to determine what their contract says. That’s not the way this should work.

So, we’re slowly getting there. We’re slowly getting there. Some of these companies are starting to recognize that they can no longer take this approach: “Now, we’ll unlock your phone but it’ll cost you $50.” You know, in some jurisdictions you can’t sell phones that are lost, as an example. There are all kinds of ways in which they can improve consumer relations that they have with customers, certainly in this province and nationally. But I think the responsibility, ultimately, with respect to the CRTC, is just greater responsibility at the federal government level and greater recognition that this is a challenge that consumers are facing.

Why should individual provinces need to debate this type of legislation at each and every—you know, at 10 legislatures across the country, and three territories—to try to provide better support for consumers, fair and balanced contracts, when one government, if they actually showed the leadership and had the guts to do something about it, would say, “This is not right. We’re going to allow more competition here. We’re going to effect change that would help to reduce cost to consumers and put these costs more in line with other jurisdictions”? Why wouldn’t they do that?

Obviously, it’s clear that they’re turning a blind eye to the issue. There are some small changes where we’re waiting for a new code to come out from the CRTC; that’s expected, I understand, in December. We’re going to be monitoring that. I know the minister is very interested to see how that lines up with our proposed legislation. I’ve heard companies that have said to me, “Look, you don’t need to do this. You don’t need to put these changes in place through legislation because we’re going to make these changes. We’re going to do all this.

We’re going to help to protect consumers.” So I said, “Well okay, if you are going to do that, then you won’t mind if we pass our legislation because obviously we’re going to be on the same page.” “Well, that’s not what we are saying. That’s not what we’re saying.”

So, right away we get the backpedaling and we get, “Well, you know, just let us make the changes”—right? So that’s not acceptable. We can’t just sit here idly by while consumers are gouged in their contracts and these companies operate indiscriminately in their practices.

As I said, we’ve seen some small steps toward improvements. We have got a long way to go, they’ve got a long way to go, the CRTC has got a long way to go, and this voluntary code with the Wireless Telecom Association is pretty weak and unhelpful to consumers.

I just want to say on about behalf of our government, our party completely supports this legislation. I want to encourage all members of the Legislature to support it. Let’s get this bill done and passed and out there working to help support consumers. We’ve been talking about this for a number of years.

I want to acknowledge the opposition members. When I introduced Bill 133 and Bill 5 and I think now Bill 60, the minister’s bill or the government bill, opposition members have stood up and supported this legislation because they know; they’re hearing from consumers as well and they understand that this is an issue that is not a partisan issue at all. This is an issue affecting consumers, across 13.5 million people in Ontario, 80% roughly of which have some type of device.

I appreciate that you recognize that this is very important to everyone, and that your constituents in your ridings want to see you stand up and support this bill and get this passed as well so that we can support consumers.

With that, Speaker, I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to speak to this today, and I again commend the minister and her ministry for their leadership on this issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments? The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to comment on this bill. I guess it has been a long time coming. We’ve heard that it was first introduced in 2010. The party on this side agreed with it and supported moving ahead on it. But now we’re wondering—even when it was introduced last spring, we were again for it but questioning, with the federal regulation coming out, the need for it and the opportunity for really confusing regulations. Now we see those regulations come out. Really, in many ways, this bill doesn’t go as far as the wireless code that was put out by the federal government.

I look down and we look at some of the issues: the cooling-off period is greater in the federal bill; there is no extra charge on unlimited services—not dealt with here, as it is by the CRTC. There are a number of things like that. So really, it looks like the bill has not been updated. Of course, it was issued before. But now we’re looking at legislation that’s coming about on December 1.

I somewhat wonder, is this the most important legislation we have to deal with here? We have issues with jobs; we have issues with the economy. People in my riding are calling up every day wondering and worried about what they’re going to do this winter with their hydro and heating bills because they know, after last year, that they had a hard time deciding what they’re going to pay: their grocery bills or these mandatory bills that are going to keep them in their houses. We certainly supported this for years, but it’s been years since this government first talked about putting this through. With a majority government it certainly could have been put through very quickly.

Anyway, we’re pleased to see this come through. We want to bring it to committee. We’re worried about some of the conflicting regulations. Maybe it’s more confusing than to go with one. We look forward to debate on this.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I rose here back on October 6, 2011, and gave my maiden speech. In that speech, I said I’m going to give credit where credit is due. I will maintain that and I’ve done that repeatedly in this House. I want to credit the member from Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this bill forward and his tenacity to reintroduce it over the few years he has been here.

It’s an important bill because it hits households. It’s all about affordability, and that’s a lot of what the NDP has been very diligent about, as far as pushing issues forward: making life more affordable. Absolutely, we need to do the same thing with hydro; and absolutely, we need to do the same thing with creating jobs; and absolutely, we need to do things with making this government more accountable; and absolutely, we need to do a lot of other things, but this is one of those steps that is a small step forward. He’s absolutely right, when the minister made his comments—and I’m glad to have him here today.

We actually made an announcement over the course of the summer—again, in White River we worked together on this, and I’m looking forward to working with you on this one. This is a measure that is absolutely needed in northern Ontario.

You need to understand something: In northern Ontario, these cellphones are becoming more of a necessity than anything else, particularly for our kids, because mom and dad are working and the line of communication is that cellphone. Those kids have that cellphone, and there are lots of surprise things that come when kids decide to press buttons without thinking about what the effect of pressing that button on the phone is.

There are a few things that I look forward to when we’re talking about this in committee which aren’t highlighted in this bill. The current contracts: What are we going to do about those? Also, the roaming fees. I understand and I agree with the minister that a lot of the responsibility for regulating cellphones falls with the CRTC, but it’s a step forward that we take that initiative to do it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John Fraser: I’m proud to stand in support of Bill 60. The act provides for clarity and transparency in wireless contracts. It provides for fair business practices. A wireless contract is very often the first contract a young person enters into. They’re vulnerable, and their families are vulnerable. This act provides for some protection.

This past summer I had the benefit and the pleasure of knocking on a lot of doors, and the message that I received when I was knocking on those doors was, “I want you to work on those things that are important to me.” I think this is one of those things. I think this is one of the issues that we can all agree on, that we can all work together on, and I urge all members of the Legislature to work towards passage of this bill so we can achieve this for the people who elected us.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to stand here today and bring comments on Bill 60. I would take exception to some of the comments that have been made here. I can tell you that having gone door to door over the summer in Ottawa South and having gone door to door in Scarborough–Guildwood and, of course, spending time in Prince Edward–Hastings, the number of times I heard from a constituent who said that we need wireless telecommunication legislation came up a total of zero.

Especially now—and we have supported it; the Minister of Natural Resources is correct. The opposition has supported previous legislation on numerous occasions, and I give him credit for bringing it forward three or four years ago when he did in a private member’s bill, because there wasn’t federal legislation coming at the time. But now we have the CRTC working on a wireless code, and it’s going to be in place on December 1; they’re bringing the recommendations forward on December 1.

So I just wonder about the relevancy of this type of legislation now and, to be honest, I wonder about the relevancy of a lot of the bills that we’re debating in the Legislature today. You know, the tanning bed bill is important; no question it’s important. The Local Food Act: There are important aspects of that as well. Co-op housing—all of these bills are wonderful bills. Water heater sales: Yes, we want to crack down on these types of things.

But what I heard about when I went door to door in Ottawa South and in Scarborough–Guildwood and in my own riding of Prince Edward–Hastings—the constituents there are phoning by the dozens daily talking about the rising cost of electricity. They’re worried about being able to stay in their homes, and we’re not doing anything about that, Madam Speaker. There’s no legislation coming from the government on how we’re going to deal with the rising cost of electricity, how we’re going to allow people to stay in their homes.

While it’s going to be 34 degrees and 44 with the humidex today in Toronto, in a couple of months from now, it’s going to be a heck of a lot colder than that, and how people are going to be able to survive, I don’t—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The minister has two minutes to respond.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Excuse me. Order.

The minister has two minutes to respond.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. I’m very encouraged to hear, I think, all-party support for this bill moving forward, as they’ve done in the past. I’m a little bit concerned, though, that the PC comments tend to suggests that our bill should be watered down. We think the exact opposite, Speaker. We think the exact opposite because we want to strengthen protection for consumers.

I said it before and I’ll say it again: The national code, if it was perfect, sure, we’d go for it. However, it isn’t. It’s an individual-complaint, voluntary kind of code. Our proposed bill is much stronger for protecting Ontarians. It deals with strong enforcement. It deals with all-in pricing, clear pricing. At the end of the day, like other provinces, we need to go forward with strong protection for consumers in Ontario, in the absence of anything federal that is robust enough for people in this province.

Having said that, when the code evolves—we’re monitoring it closely, and we certainly don’t want any duplication or confusion. That’s not in the interests of Ontarians; it’s not in the interests of consumers.

I do want to thank the contributions and the comments by the members from Ottawa South, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Algoma–Manitoulin and last, but not least, the Minister of Natural Resources, the MPP for Sault Ste. Marie, who has been a tireless advocate for seeing this kind of protection go forward. We want to stand up for Ontarians. We want to have clear contracts. We want to have clear pricing. We want to make sure that the 80% of Ontarians who have wireless devices have good support. They have to have clear contracts. We have to have clear enforcement and strong enforcement for Ontarians, and I hope this bill will move forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I rise today to begin the leadoff for our response to the wireless bill. As I said before, I commend the minister who started this bill some time ago. I think at that time we agreed, as did all three parties in here, that it was time to move ahead with that bill. The government at that time decided not to. I believe the bill has been introduced three more times, and now we’re seeing, after federal legislation was put through, an urgency to move ahead with it.

In many cases—actually, in most cases—the federal legislation actually goes further. We really question now the dual legislation and why we’re going through it. In some ways, it’s even more confusing. Many other provinces have moved ahead. Ontario decided—the Liberal government decided—not to do that at the time. The persistence of the member over there brought it up a number of times.

We saw that there was a true need for this; we agreed with it. We did offer some comments on it. We’re glad to see that they allowed for the extension of the contract, something that we thought was really a negative—to lose your cellphone number after your contract expired. So, certainly, they moved ahead on that.

But we need to look at some broader issues that this bill hasn’t talked about. I heard the comment about the spectrum. With the big three, it’s interesting, because throughout the debate at the federal level, I didn’t hear anything from this government that talked about the need to move ahead with the cell spectrum. As I say, 95% of it is owned by the big three. This was an opportunity to move ahead and get some other players. Granted, there was some fear that a large US supplier would come in here, but really, 95% of the market today is controlled by three companies. That doesn’t sponsor competition.

It’s a problem. At one time, we saw that prices in Canada were some of the highest in the world. A recent study shows that that’s no longer the case. We’re actually lower than most states and most provinces. That has been taken care of; I guess the threat of competition has moved that down.

Certainly, we need to do more. I don’t see anything in this bill that does that. Nothing in this bill talks about the spectrum issue or talks about the competition issue. So certainly they could have gone much further.

I don’t see anything in this bill that encourages rural coverage. Being from a rural area—well, you don’t even have to be that rural. You can drive down the 401 and you’re constantly being dropped. Service is great in the big centres. We don’t see anything that has done that. I live three or four miles north of the 401: very poor service. Our township is very poorly serviced. I look at this as a missed opportunity by this government.

We are a township that benefited from the high-speed Internet program that they had a number of years ago. This government was slow to accept new technologies that came around. Today’s highest and best data plans are superior to what they’re rolling out for high-speed Internet in the rural areas—by far.

You also have to look at the issue of the wireless Internet that’s being rolled out. Because they wouldn’t allow cell companies to enter that market, it’s much slower. We’re looking at one-megabyte services. Current data services are approaching 20 megabytes—not even close.

I don’t know what happens in four or five years, when this service is no longer viable and equipment can’t be bought. Who is going to go back and replace this? This was an expensive program they brought through.

Granted, when the program started, there was a need for it. I remember speaking to the ministry. We were one of the first townships that progressed with this. I acknowledge that it was too late for our township, but in eastern Ontario, all the other counties were waiting to move ahead. The feedback was, “We can’t be supporting cell companies.” You look at the other side of it. What they’ve done is they’ve encouraged an obsolete technology. Equipment that was out of date was being removed from earlier installations to be moved over.

So really all we’ve done is we’ve put in an obsolete service for something that, with competition, could have been opened up. There were at least three companies—and probably more of the small companies would have moved in, because there was a plan for government help in this program—that would have put in something that would have, of course, been the latest technology, which would be much faster. It would have had an action plan to be updated when it needed to be. I mean, I’m really worried about this equipment that’s out of date now.

I’ll go back to how in our township, where we moved ahead with the wireless service, we extended a number of towers. It’s a population of about 13,000 people. The last I heard, the company had 19 customers—try to maintain something. The problem with it was that there was enough cell service when the new cell companies came through that it made it redundant. We were lucky because we had enough service with some towns that people didn’t go for it. But as you travel up through places north of the 401, as you go west, there’s absolutely no cell service. This is an issue, and we see this as a problem moving forward.

As we go through this and we talk about some of the issues that were addressed in this bill—in many cases, the cooling-off period in Bill 60 is 10 days; the CRTC is 30. No extra costs for unlimited services: This bill doesn’t address it; the CRTC does. Trial period regulation: They address it; this bill does not. Month-to-month extension: We’re glad they listened to that, because we think that would have been very disruptive, to have your cellphone end on the date your contract ended. We had some discussion with the minister about that.

I know people myself who have had plans that have been over for years, and they just don’t go in to renew the phone because they’re happy with what they have and happy with the bill they have. Roaming charges cap: One of the biggest issues of shellshock is not addressed here; there’s a cap in the federal bill.

We see that there are lots of places here where we have redundant legislation. Really, that’s confusing now, because you have two sets of rules. Of course, the feds’, where it’s more stringent, take effect. We think that some work with the bill—and maybe through committee, we can make sure that they do agree or at least that they’re handled at the federal level; we can take them out of here.

We want something that is really going to handle or provide a needed service to consumers, that makes it clear. There’s no question that of the people I know, very few of them don’t have cellphones. It’s an important service that 10, 15 years ago nobody would have dreamt would have been so universally adopted. As the prices come down and as people adopt it, it’s become part of their lifeline and really part of the 911 system. People feel, if they don’t have it, and they’ve got some issues—they certainly see a need for it.

I see the wireless code issued in June of this year to take effect later this year. I really wonder how quickly—we talk about rushing this through. They gave six months. Is it reasonable to assume that we can ask carriers to issue new contracts in a matter of days to beat this plan? It’s just a rush.

I look at this and I look at the need for this, and I just wonder why. We’ve sat on this for four years now. We have an economy that’s in trouble. We have 600,000 people without jobs and nothing on the docket coming. I don’t see anything in what I’ve seen coming up in this Legislative Assembly that’s going to deal with jobs. We talk about consumer sentiment, and it’s not very positive in this province. People are worried about their jobs. They’re worried about what they’re going to do tomorrow. I guess they’re worried about being able to pay for their cellphone.

It’s the timing of it, and it just makes you wonder where they’re going with this; and why they’re not talking about the real issues?

In my riding, I went around, as I’m sure most people in this House did in July. I didn’t hear anybody talk about cellphones. I heard a lot of people talking about the economy and I heard people worrying about their jobs. I heard a lot of people talking about the gas plants, accountability. I went door-to-door. This one senior I met came to the door and she seemed to be kind of apologizing to me. She said, “You know, I had to do something today I’ve never done in my life. I voted for the Conservatives.

“I know Dalton McGuinty, knew their family well, liked him, but they messed with the money. There’s no explanation for that. They just had no regard for the money, and look at the mess we’re in.”

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Jim, get back on the bill. Come on.

Mr. Jim McDonell: But I’m talking about the issue of—why are we doing this now? It really makes you wonder. This is somebody—you know, I said, “You don’t have to apologize to me for voting Conservative.” It’s accountability. Where is it? Where is the looking after what’s really needed with this government? Where are we going with it?

When I review the bills, our analysis is that the federal one is a lot more stringent. It does a lot more. I’m not saying it wasn’t required, but we’re sitting here four years after it was introduced, and we’re trying to panic it through. All it will likely do is—are we going to force cell companies to come up with a new contract that’s redundant on December 1? I mean, there’s a lot of ambiguity put into this. A lot of the things, as I say, are much more stringent in the federal law. We support what’s in here, no question, but it’s too late. You sat on it for four years. I don’t know what we can say. It’s hard to stand up and rally the troops around something that’s already done.

Even when it was introduced last spring, we questioned the fact that going to a number, or 10 different—when the feds were talking about how they were in the midst of it, they would be introducing it. Of course, I agree that there’s always that thought that we’re going to put it out, and when’s it going to come out? We heard this government do it for four years. I said, “Well, you know, it would be nice to think it’s going to be out in the next few months,” but I didn’t quite believe them, either. But they didn’t. They issued it on—what?—June 3?

Now we’re sitting here looking at trying to push our legislation, trying to beat them with a date? They gave six months for the companies to make the changes. Are we going to expect them to do it in two? There’s a lot of work to be done. There’s a lot of confusion with the consumers to do this. I think maybe all we’re going to do is confuse them, because now we’ve got regulations that are superseded and more stringent.

The biggest complaint I hear is about the roaming fees. They’re not even addressed here.

Whereas at least here, they put a cap—the feds. It’s something that we’ve really got to wonder where we’re going. Prices, unlimited services—there are more limits put in with the CRTC one. You just go through it. The post-paid service contracts: stricter rules with the feds just all the way through, where the customers can find their information.

If you go with one—there’s a benefit with going with one deal for the country, because it is seamless. People can move across the country. You don’t expect your cell service to stop at the border. You expect it to move along the border. So the federal idea was something we were very much occurring—and we’re disappointed that they didn’t come out sooner themselves, and we were disappointed—we supported this bill in 2010. We’re getting to the last half of 2013, and we’re trying to ram something through. I wonder: Is it just—because it is an issue—

Interjection.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Well, but you had support from all three parties and a majority government, and you couldn’t get it through, so I just wonder, were you serious about it? Was it an issue? Those are the questions I hear. Really, I don’t hear anybody talking about cell service, because studies show that we have lower prices than our neighbours. So, as I say, I just wonder about where we are going. It’s not what I heard when I went around the riding.

You talk about a member—calling up just last week. He came in with his hydro bill, asking how he’s going to pay it. He said, “I got through last year. Hydro came out with an idea: ‘Well, look, we’ll let you go to two payments.’” He said, “What am I going to do? Take a mortgage out?” He said, “I can’t go down to two payments. That doesn’t help me at all.”

We look for the reason why it’s even a worry, and it’s because of the mismanagement of the files—on many files. I mean, the energy file: We’re adding a billion dollars a year in unnecessary costs. You look at spilling water over a dam. It’s $300 million here that our consumers pay for. The costs to get our neighbours to take our surplus power, because we have no management plan, is $500 million, half a billion dollars. Think of what we could do with making this life affordable in Ontario. Think of the companies and the technology and the education we could provide, the nurses, the doctors.

I mean, $500 million, half a billion bucks—$80 million to vent steam at our nuclear plants—because of our lack of plans.

The Green Energy Act, it’s again something—and I wonder about this bill. Is it just for show? Is it just to show that we’ve got something here that regardless of the costs—we’re going to drive up costs getting companies now to move to legislation that is temporary because the other one takes effect December 1. I think if we sit back and look at—I’m sure there are a few issues and I think the minister—I have to commend her. There are a few issues that, of course, this CRTC code of conduct would not address and I think it’s important that we do address those.

But from our analysis, of the many things in this bill, it’s down to one or two or three different items, really something that we’d be best to work with the feds to make sure there’s a federal regulation on it.

I live in a border town and it’s somewhat confusing because if you go 15 minutes to the east of us you’re into Quebec and they have a different set of contracts than they do in Ontario. Of course, they’d have to produce two, depending where your residence was, but there’s the confusion. We’ve got Ottawa; we’ve got some big populations around that border. So having that national program is certainly a big benefit to us and I think a big benefit to the people right across the province.

I had the opportunity this summer to travel out to Vancouver. It’s nice to be able to take your phone out there and know that the same rules apply, as opposed to if you happen to travel to the south; right away you’re worried about roaming costs. Again, as I said, it’s something that’s not handled in this. We’ve heard crazy stories about people coming back from vacation and having thousands of dollars of roaming costs, which most times, I understand, have been mitigated somewhat, but certainly nobody wants to see a bill of that kind. This bill does not talk about that.

The CRTC does; they put a limit of $50, which is probably about where we’d like to see it. There is some limit or some responsibility to the consumer but I think that’s something that’s a happy medium that looks after the rights of the consumer and the contracts that these companies must sign with their foreign carriers.

I had three children at home over the summer, so cell bills and data services are up. I got a warning from my supplier that I was up at 80% and then 90% and 95% of my data load. Some of those services are already coming across, so it’s good to see that. With some teenagers, sometimes you have a lot of impact with just what their usage is. They’ve grown to use these phones like they’re another appendage, and we see lots of advances in technologies.

I know there’s talk about a list of services or products, but I haven’t seen any products around the world—I take an interest in technology—that aren’t available in Canada quickly, whether it be the iPhone or the Samsung Galaxy phones. They’re all here relatively quick, so I think that that’s looked after. I think that’s part of the stability with a federal regulation, because one thing we have in Canada, we have a smaller market certainly than most of the larger industrialized countries.

We want to make sure that we have a program, when the major carriers are coming in here, the major suppliers, that we’re worthwhile to enter, and we’re worthwhile to enter early. We want to make sure that we have the latest Apples or the latest Samsungs, or wherever the technology is. But to do that, you have to make it that when a company comes in, it can come in easily: They know the rules up front, they know what they have to follow and they also have access to the full 33 million people, if possible, coming in.

Granted, Ontario is a large province, but we see examples in a lot of the latest pharmaceuticals, where a lot of this government regulation—the TSSA, with new equipment that doesn’t come into this province because the extra cost of getting them approved in Ontario is not worth their time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): May I ask the member—since it is time, a quarter after 10. We will be recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to welcome to the gallery today Mrs. Michelle Gallagher-Prowse, who is the mother of page James Prowse, who comes from the great riding of Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to introduce Simon Chapelle, who is here today. His son is a page in the Legislature. Welcome him to the Legislature.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome the father of one of our pages, Ian Chapelle. His father’s name is Simon, and he’s back for a second straight day, he’s enjoyed the theatre so much; and my friend and Simon’s friend and Ian’s friend, James O’Halloran, also from Prince Edward–Hastings riding. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’d like to welcome Paul Horning, father of Peyton Horning, who’s from Leeds–Grenville. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today with us here in the Speaker’s gallery we have the newly appointed Consul General of the Federal Republic of Germany at Toronto, Mr. Walter Stechel. It’s wonderful for you to be here. Congratulations on your appointment.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery today we have an American delegation from the Eastern Regional Conference of the Council of State Governments, an interparliamentary association in which the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has membership. They are led here today by Assemblyman Robin Schimminger and by staff of the ERC, Wendell Hannaford and Earl Eisenhart. Welcome, and thank you for being here.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I know this is something that we all look forward to. I would now ask all of our members to join me in welcoming our first group of legislative pages serving in the first session of the 40th Parliament. Please assemble.

From Whitby–Oshawa, Pratah Bhatt; from Prince Edward–Hastings, Ian Chapelle; from Huron–Bruce, Kyle Cronin; from Northumberland–Quinte West, Kieva Earle; from St.

Paul’s, Sean Garner; from Niagara Falls, Erica George; from Leeds–Grenville, Peyton Horning; from Eglinton–Lawrence, William Howard-Waddingham; from Mississauga–Streetsville, Massoma Kisob; from York West, Efua Mensimah Kwofie; from Don Valley East, Megan Lai; from Hamilton Mountain, Gabrielle Le Donne; from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Bridget McCann; from Mississauga–Brampton South, Aly Muhammad Mithani; from Newmarket–Aurora, James Prowse; from Scarborough Centre, Ravicha Ravinthiran; from London West, Taylor Roch; from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Jasper Ross; from Willowdale, Katherine Tom; and from Scarborough–Agincourt, Daniel Velyvis.

Welcome.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: As I begin, Speaker, I want to congratulate my new critic for finance, Vic Fedeli, and my new critic for accountability, Doug Holyday. Welcome to the new positions.

Premier, you had a press conference yesterday, and you basically said that if we don’t pass legislation from the last session on tanning beds and the Local Food Act, you would call an election. Quite frankly, Premier, that’s like walking in here, throwing up your hands and saying that you’ve got no new ideas. You’ve spent the last eight months in conversations. You spent the last three months of the summer on a province-wide hand-holding tour. Premier, you may have given everybody a group hug, but all you came back with was sore arms and no new ideas.

If that’s the best you can do, isn’t it time to actually change this government and get our province back on track?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. Yesterday’s comment applied.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There were other people in your own caucus speaking.

Yesterday’s comment applied, so I will start right off by going to the individual member, and a warning means the last time.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I notice—

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My arms are fine, actually. I’ve got quite strong arms. I was on a canoe trip, and it was good.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify. I’m glad that the Leader of the Opposition was paying attention to my press conference. I notice that he couldn’t actually deliver the question with a straight face, but I appreciate that he listened. I was using that piece of legislation, which is a very important piece of legislation—protecting kids from cancer and melanoma is very, very important, and I was using that piece of legislation among others as an example. It was an example of this: There are many things that we can work together on.

There is a lot of common ground, things that the opposition party and the third party have said that they agree on. I said, “Let’s work on those things together, and let’s make the Legislature work.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, when it comes to the tanning bed legislation, this is a government that wheeled out cancer patients to try to distract attention from your gas plant scandal. So, please, don’t give us any lectures on that kind of hypocrisy.

So you want to co-operate; you want to work together. Here’s an idea for you, Premier, because you don’t seem to have any ideas when it comes to jobs: The Green Energy Act is economic suicide. It’s driving up our hydro rates. It’s costing us jobs. It is tearing down communities right down the middle. If you did your big group hug across the province, I know you heard it.

Will you join with us? Will you co-operate? Will you end the Green Energy Act to bring jobs back?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re not going to go backwards. I just came from a meeting called Meeting of the Minds; it’s happening at the Brick Works in Toronto. People from all over the world have come here because Ontario is a hub of sustainability. Ontario is developing technology in clean water, in transit and in green technology for energy. We are exporting that knowledge. That is the future, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to want to take us back. That’s not where we are going. We’re going forward. We’re tapping into our strengths. We’re tapping into our innovative culture here in Ontario. Those are the investments that we’re going to make. Those are the investments we are making. We’ll move ahead with him or without him, but we’d like to have him with us.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’re not moving forward; you’re barely treading water with your embrace of Dalton McGuinty’s agenda. You know what? We’re drowning in runaway hydro costs, and it’s costing us jobs. I know you’re stuck in the past. You want to stick to the McGuinty agenda. You won’t accept our new ideas on ending the Green Energy Act.

Here’s another one for you: Your College of Trades is nothing more than a giveaway to the special interests. It’s going to stand in the way of young people getting good jobs. It has runaway costs that involve a new tax on anyone from electricians to hairstylists. You want to co-operate? You want good ideas? End that College of Trades boondoggle before it even gets going.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just talk about some of the things that I’ve been doing since I came into this office and the investments that we’ve been making, investments in business: $17.6 million to support business in regions across the province. That’s leveraging $133 million in investments and retaining and creating 2,800 jobs. That’s the kind of investment we need to make—$50 million in new venture capital.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about us not moving forward. In fact, he is stuck in the past. He does not have ideas for how to move forward, how to create entrepreneurship, how to make sure that capital gets invested in new ideas that create new business and new opportunities for people in the province. That’s what $50 million of venture capital will do. That’s the kind of strategic investment that we’re making to create jobs and create the conditions for jobs to be created.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Look, we’ve put out over 200 pages of bold new ideas in our Paths to Prosperity to turn our province around and get our economy moving again, and you can’t find one single idea? You don’t want to co-operate; you want to be stuck in the past of the Dalton McGuinty agenda. I’ve given two ideas, and you reject them out of hand. You rejected arbitration reform out of hand. You may have ridden around in your canoe, but you haven’t actually brought forward one single new idea to get our economy going and to get spending under control.

Let me try one more time. I know you’re running scared of the public sector union bosses. You’re basically in their pockets. Why don’t you stay in your place and say no and that you agree with PCs and will bring in a province-wide, across-the-board wage freeze that will save us $2 billion a year right there?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The underpinnings of what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about today and often talks about is that we should cut services, that we should fire workers. So we should fire 10,000 education workers, we should cancel programs and reduce those programs, reduce those services to people, and that we should undermine organized labour. That is one of the pillars of his philosophy. We don’t hold with that. We believe that organized labour, that workers working together, have created safe workplaces over the decades. A lot of good has been done in the name of collective bargaining.

We believe in those processes, but the Leader of the Opposition does not, and that is evident from those 200 pages that he has put out, and it’s evident in every question that he asks in the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let me give another example of how the Premier is running scared when it comes to the government union bosses in our province, the very same union bosses that held our kids hostage. They cancelled after-school activities; they cancelled graduations and held our kids and our grandkids hostage. What did you do? You gave away the ship; you gave them a raise. You ran scared from them and you ran one of them as your candidate in London West. What does that say about your leadership? What does that say about your capacity to actually get the books back and balanced in the province?

You want to co-operate? You want to get things done for the people of Ontario? You want to balance the books? Cancel that deal; we can’t afford it. They shouldn’t get a raise. They held our province hostage.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I go back to what I just said, that the premise of many of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions is about creating discord in the public sector. It’s about labour unrest. It’s about breaking relationships that are in the best interests of our children and the students in our schools. It is in the best interests of the children in our schools and the students all across the province that we have a good working relationship.

We worked within the fiscal arrangement that we had put in place. There was no additional money that went into the agreements. We came up with the savings that we had identified. But what we did was we changed the relationship and what we’ve got is a working relationship with the education sector. We’re going to maintain that because it’s in the best interests of every single child who’s starting school today, who’s been in school, and every student in this province.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, respectfully, what we got is you gave away the store. We got the biggest deficits and debts we’ve ever had in the history of the province of Ontario. We can’t afford it; it’s got to come to an end. You want to co-operate; you want to get things done. I put idea after idea on the floor, to bring accountability for taxpayers, to get our economy moving again.

You’ve gone across the province now, Premier, for eight months. You’ve given a lot of group hugs. It’s time for action. We’ve got ideas if you don’t. We’re ready to go. Let’s actually put those ideas on the table and turn our province around, get our books back in balance so our great province of Ontario will lead again. That’s our plan.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I spoke about a couple of the things that we have done: investing in infrastructure, investing in business, investing in people. If we do those things and if we do them strategically, as we have been—for example, the investments in infrastructure that will come from the $100-million fund for municipal bridges, roads and important infrastructure; that’s something that I heard about for a number of years when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and when I was Minister of Transportation.

I would think that it would be the kind of thing that the Leader of the Opposition actually would support, because it is going to support rural and northern municipalities that have aging infrastructure and that know that that infrastructure is one of the conditions to bring business to their communities. So, $100 million a year is a significant, significant investment in that infrastructure.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s the kind of thing that I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have supported, and it’s the kind of thing that we are going to continue to do, because that’s what will create jobs; it will create opportunity in every community across the province.

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. As the Premier knows, we expect the Legislature to deliver the results that she promised Ontarians this session. So could she just take maybe a minute or so to explain exactly what her priorities are?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think I’ve been doing that. I’ve said that investing in people, investing in business, investing in infrastructure are the priorities that I believe will get the economy going and will create jobs, and that is already happening. The investments that we are making, the support that we’re putting in place and the changes that we’re making are what are going to create those jobs and help people in their day-to-day lives. That’s our priority.

Whether it is creating more opportunities and more services in home care, whether it’s the Youth Employment Fund or whether it’s investments in transit, those are the kinds of things that are going to get the economy going and are going to create jobs across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, media reports this week laid out some of the government’s supposed priorities for this session, and they included lowering auto insurance rates, establishing a Financial Accountability Office and getting to work on putting people to work. Those are the things that topped the list.

Every one of those is a New Democrat idea, a New Democrat initiative. The Premier’s own projects, like her plan to hit families with new, unfair taxes and road tolls, are nowhere to be seen.

Does the Premier have some secret priorities of her own that she hasn’t yet shared with us? Or does she sincerely expect people to believe that New Democrats are trying to stop the government from implementing measures that we forced them to adopt in the first place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, it’s tempting to have an ongoing debate about whose idea it was to support young people getting into work, but I can tell you, that is something that we have been talking about for a long time. The leader of the third party can claim it for her own, but the fact is, it is an idea that needs to be acted on. We found common ground on it; it’s in our budget—as is our commitment to investing in transit. That is an idea that I have not heard the leader of the third party talk about: investing in infrastructure, investing in transit that we know is critical to the economy of this region, but also to the economy of the province.

That’s an idea that we are acting on, and that did not come from anywhere except from these benches.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, here’s what people see: a government that has promised action on jobs, but seems more interested in photo ops than job creation; a government that has promised to close corporate tax loopholes, but can’t be bothered to even close any; a government that has promised to make life affordable and lower auto insurance rates, but seems more interested in protecting industry profits than drivers’ wallets.

Is the Premier interested in actually delivering results, or does she just want to play the same old games that help the Ontario Liberals hold on to power and leave Ontarians falling further and further behind?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party understands that the 43,600 net new jobs that were created in Ontario are a result of good policies, good fundamentals and our recovery from the economic downturn. I know she will give credit to the people of Ontario and the businesses of Ontario for creating those jobs.

We’re going to continue to support those businesses and to support the people of Ontario in that good work, and part of that is creating conditions so that new jobs can be created and part of that is investing in transit.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party also knows that the reduction in auto insurance that we have committed to is under way. We have made that commitment. The Minister of Finance has outlined the way that we’re going to get there. We’re acting on that, it was in our budget, and we will continue to remove the costs from the system. That will allow those average auto insurance costs to go down.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Yesterday in this place, the Premier said she will “make sure that, as questions are asked, they get answered.” But when it comes to the actions of certain senior Liberal insiders, some pretty key questions simply aren’t being answered.

Does the Premier think that’s acceptable?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d love to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t actually know what the leader of the third party is talking about.

I will just say that, in general, when there are questions that are asked, we want the answers to be forthcoming. That’s what I’ve said all along. If she’s talking about questions at committee, we have provided the opportunity for questions to be asked of me, many of my colleagues and the former Premier, and we will absolutely continue to answer questions as they are asked.

If the leader of the third party wants to be more specific, I’ll be more specific in my answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the Premier can actually keep her promise. She can make sure that, when questions are asked, they get answered. She can tell her government House leader to put this on the table and make it clear that questions about emails concerning senior Liberals and their attempts to get the Speaker to fall in line are actually answered.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’d like to remind the leader of the third party that the ruling has been made and that particular reference should not be used in the House. I would ask the member to rephrase the question, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m asking the Premier to allow questions to be asked at committee. This has nothing to do with the point of privilege, Premier. What this has to do with is making sure that your promise that people’s answers will be had, that their questions will be answered, actually occurs. That’s something that you have promised and it’s something you can see happen: As a leader, as a Premier, make sure that the answers come to committee. That is the question.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have been categorical in my support for an open process at committee. The committee makes its decisions; the committee works within the rules; the Chair of the committee works within the rules, the committee works with the Clerk’s office, and that process has to unfold within the rules. I am completely supportive of questions that are being asked, being answered. But the committee has to operate as an entity with the advice of the Clerk, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has a pretty easy choice: She can keep protecting Liberal insiders or she can open up the gas plant committee so that when questions are asked, they actually get answered. What is this Premier going to do? Is she going to continue to protect Liberal insiders, or is she going to take that leadership role that she likes to brag about—about transparency and openness and answering all the questions—and actually make sure that the committee is able to ask the important questions and get them answered?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just reinforce what I said, which is that the committee has my blessing and my support and my encouragement to do its work. When I came into this office, I opened up the process. In fact, there have been 135,000 documents that have gone to committee, 32 motions, 53 witnesses, 90 hours. That committee has the right to do its work, and, as I say, I encourage that work.

What I do take some offence at is the allegation that somehow I’m protecting or obstructing that process. That is not the case. It is quite to the contrary. I have opened up the process. I want those questions answered. But you know, what I also want is for us to be able to do the work of the people of Ontario, make sure that we move forward and we make the investments and put the supports in place so we can create jobs and we can help people in their lives.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question this morning is for the Premier. Five years ago this week, the world entered its deepest financial crisis in 80 years. Families suffered and Ontario suffered. Since then, other jurisdictions made the hard choices. They cut spending, they restored jobs and prosperity to taxpayers, but not Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Attorney General will come to order. The member for Etobicoke North will come to order.

Continue, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Your government has saddled this province with over $250 billion of debt, with no plan to balance the budget, no plan to restore lost manufacturing jobs, no plan to provide hope for Ontario’s youth. Even the Toronto Star today is questioning your lack of a plan and your “piecemeal approach to governing.”

Premier, here’s your chance: Tell the people of Ontario which drastic cuts you plan to balance the budget.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member on his new appointment as the critic to the finance committee. I look forward to a very collaborative approach and working on behalf of all Ontarians for the benefit of Ontarians. One of the ways we do that is to be very careful and very honest in terms of what has been achieved.

The member talks about having a plan, which we’ve outlined very clearly in this budget. We have a six-point plan that talks about the path to balance.

More importantly, this afternoon, we will release at public accounts an audited statement talking about the achievements that this government has been able to do over the course of the last number of years as it relates to the budget and as it relates to the decisions that we’ve made—tough decisions that the opposition have not been prepared to make, but we have done so. We have done so in a very balanced approach and a very fair approach.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, let me refresh your memory. While governments around the world focused on rebuilding their economies, your government focused on keeping Liberal operatives employed, pouring $585 million into cancelled gas plants.

While families wondered how they would plan for retirement or fund their children’s education, unelected Liberals plotted to hijack an election, treating taxpayers’ dollars like Liberal Party donations.

Good jobs keep leaving our province, and young people are leaving to follow that work. Your overspending is now hurting the things Ontarians care about. Look at your cuts to physiotherapy services. All your government can do—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment and the member from Peterborough, come to order—last time.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: —is simply jump from one scandal to another. Premier, level with us: Are you just too busy protecting Liberal interests to be bothered to work on creating jobs and economic growth for Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The province—and the people of Ontario, more importantly—have been working very hard to ensure its recovery. The member opposite has just contradicted himself twice. On the one hand, they want across-the-board cuts that would hamper our sensitive recovery. On the other hand, they complain when cuts occur. You can’t have it both ways; you can’t suck and blow. We need to ensure a balanced recovery.

As a result of those decisions, 180% of those jobs have been recovered. Some 477,000 net new jobs have occurred.

We have maintained and we have been very direct and very strategic in our investments, which have enabled us to be more competitive in the long term. That is what’s important: the dividend that’s going to accrue of those investments to afford the debt that has been accumulated. We are going to consider and we’re going to take every action necessary to protect Ontario—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure: Some $85 million have been spent to create a transit plan for Scarborough, but last week the minister drew a line and two dots on a map and happily flushed this $85 million down the toilet.

Will the minister tell Ontarians how much of their money he will waste, in total, as he pursues a shortened, delayed and technologically uncertain subway?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We’ve been working very closely with Metrolinx, with Places to Grow. We’ve identified, through our iCorridor system—which is now one of the most advanced planning tools—the optimal route.

Metrolinx’s desire, I think, in their communications with me to this point, is to try to not change the plan again, so we’re sticking with the original route.

I think there’s a strong agreement that in Places to Grow, the Scarborough Town Centre is the focal point of intensification in the renewal of Scarborough and the creation of jobs. We have the Ministry of Transportation working. This is an evidence-based system. No one has drawn a line on the map. This is millions of dollars in planning, and in a plan that is on that route.

What we’re doing, to comply with many of the New Democrats’ and city hall’s demands on us, is changing the technology and running on the same line.

I don’t think this is complicated; this is pretty straightforward. This will cost about $1.8 billion—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A responsible minister—indeed, a responsible government—would take a moment to consider their costs—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order. I just want you to stop.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: —to consider the costs, delays and risks associated with a major change to an infrastructure investment, particularly after the gas plant fiasco in Mississauga and Oakville.

We know that taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $85 million to derail transit plans in Scarborough. Can the minister tell Ontarians exactly what the total cost will be for the confusion, the chaos, the delays and the waste of the minister’s transit musings?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we have, and I think my colleagues from Scarborough will tell you, because most of them here have been working on this for over 20 years as city councillors, to deliver on the promises of many, which is to deliver a properly well-planned subway to the Scarborough Town Centre, which is what we’re doing, and to do it cost-effectively and to use it.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to join me this afternoon at the Meeting of the Minds, where I will be outlining and demonstrating GeoPortal and iCorridor and our advance planning techniques. This government is prepared to go further into an open-data model, which my friend, Minister Milloy, is leading.

I am confused, Mr. Speaker, only by one thing here. I am confused about what the NDP is doing in Scarborough. Do you support a subway, or do you not support a subway? How would you finance it? Where is the money coming from? What is the alignment you will use? I am absolutely bewildered by the 15 different positions the NDP seems to have on this. When they have one, maybe we can have a conversation.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Education. As the new school year begins, we are reminded of our collective responsibility to ensure the safety of our students in the classroom. As a former school board trustee, I know that our school boards, principals and teachers take school safety seriously and have measures in place to make sure our students are protected.

Paul Harvey, the principal in one of my schools, Tam O’Shanter public school in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, tells me that parents who drop off their sons and daughters at their school take comfort to know that our schools are locked during school hours. This gives parents the confidence that they deserve and protects our students. Parents in my riding also want to know what our government is doing to ensure that our students are safe in a learning environment.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Education, can she please inform the House what our government is doing to ensure our schools are safe?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member from Scarborough–Agincourt is absolutely right that the safety of our students must be our top priority. Our government has worked very hard to make our schools some of the safest in the world.

Last year, we reopened the Safe Welcome Program with an additional investment of $10 million to give school staff more control over who enters the school during school hours. I’m pleased to report that over 3,300 elementary schools in Ontario that have received funding from this program now have the Safe Welcome equipment installed in their schools.

Any school that received this funding locks their doors during school hours in order to restrict access through the school office and to keep their school safe. All school boards in Ontario are also required to have emergency lockdown protocols in place, which they work out with the local police force, and we’ve provided $1.7 million to support—

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to thank the minister for her response and also congratulate her on reopening the Safe Welcome Program and all the work she has done to ensure our schools are safe.

Speaker, a comprehensive approach to school safety is very important to every member of this House. The security of schools is paramount, but we also need to have a positive school climate inside and outside the classroom, helping our students to succeed. Many parents in my community are concerned about bullying in our schools and want to ensure that students have the support they need. Internet bullying comes with harmful effects. Our students feel isolated and afraid to come to school.

Ms. Zhang, a teacher at Highland Heights public school in my riding, said, “I work” very “hard to provide a safe and encouraging” environment “for all my students to learn, because I know that when a student is bullied and is fearful, their academics and social well-being suffer.”

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can she tell the House what this government is doing to combat bullying both inside and outside the classroom?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you, again, to the member for this really important question, because every student in Ontario has the right to feel safe and accepted while they’re at school. That’s exactly why our government passed the Accepting Schools Act just last year. For the first time ever, we have defined bullying in legislation so that every student, every teacher, every principal and every parent knows exactly what we are talking about when we say bullying is not okay in our schools.

The definition also includes a definition of cyberbullying, because we know that bullying that takes place over the Internet, out of school, also has an impact on the school climate. So we are making sure that we build a positive school—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Madam Premier, you are spending 10 billion taxpayer dollars each year paying down the debt on the interest of the runaway debt that the Liberals have run up. You say your government is committed to transit. Maybe you can tell transit riders how many kilometres of subway could be built with $10 billion.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure who should be taking that question, so I will take the question.

I think what it’s about is questioning the advisability of investing in transit. I believe and we believe on this side of the House that transit is a critical condition for economic growth in this region and, in fact, in many parts of the province, so we’re not going to back away from investing in transit. We are on track to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. The Minister of Finance is going to present the public accounts this afternoon, and the member opposite will be able to see that.

But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, if we don’t make these investments, if we don’t invest in transit and the other conditions for growth, then we will not grow the economy and we will not create those jobs, and I’m not willing to go there, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Madam Premier, we can’t build transit if you don’t get your runaway spending under control. Without a sound plan for this province, you can’t deliver the solutions Toronto so desperately needs. You and your government had 10 years to build subways in this city but you spent 10 years running up the debt instead. Now your transportation minister makes a new, confusing announcement each week. You’ve spent 10 years throwing away money we could have spent on subways. Why should transit riders trust you now?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the member opposite should talk to the people in Brampton and Mississauga, the people who are taking the GO train from Kitchener–Waterloo, the people who are taking the GO train from Barrie, the people who are going to be taking the subway to York University. I think the member opposite should talk to those people about the investments this government has made.

The fact is that subsequent governments, government after government in this Legislature, did not invest in transit, or started to invest in transit and then filled in the holes. The member opposite is part of a party that absolutely did that.

We have been investing in transit since we came into this office. The fact is that there are some contentious lines and we have made decisions—without the help, I must say, of any consistency from the city council of which the member opposite was a member. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to invest in transit.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you have recently indicated your support for a PC private member’s bill that would dismantle a long-standing collective agreement between EllisDon and several building trades in this province. Your government has a record now of joining with the PCs to subvert and circumvent collective bargaining rights, as it did last year with our province’s teachers with the imposition of Bill 115.

Premier, can you explain why the passage of a Conservative private member’s bill, custom-built for the benefit of a single company, is one of your key priorities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said yesterday when I was asked about this question by the press, this is an anomalous situation that arose out of a decision that was made in the 1950s. My understanding of the private member’s bill is that it would rectify that situation and would actually level the playing field in terms of the construction industry in the province. To me, Mr. Speaker, it only makes sense for there to be some fairness in the system, so that’s what this private member’s bill would do.

In fact, the Labour Relations Board gave EllisDon, I believe, two years to approach the Legislature to make this change, so it’s an anomaly that needs to be fixed in order to level the playing field.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Premier, you said that your tenure as the Premier was going to be different from your predecessor, but it seems that bargaining rights in this province are no safer now than they were when Dalton McGuinty was the Premier.

Premier, the people of the province of Ontario sent us here to deliver results, and they are concerned when they see Liberals and Conservatives joining together, working overtime to pass a bill that helps one single company, especially when the women and men who work for that company have a major problem with this bill. Even the member from Lanark has a problem with this bill. Premier, why is it that you’re so determined to team up with the Hudak Conservatives to ram this bill through?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand the politics of trying to make this into an ideological fight. That’s not what it is; it’s a practical solution to an anomalous situation that happened many, many years ago, before the member was born. I, however, was born. It needs to be corrected. We need to make sure that there’s a level playing field in the construction industry.

I’m a practical politician. I’m not going to get trapped in ideological rants because when there’s a practical solution to a problem, let’s work on that. That’s why we’re supporting the private member’s bill.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, as you know, there are a great many young people in my great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham who attend post-secondary institutions across the province. Some of these individuals are in tough financial positions and rely on the support of the Ontario Student Assistance Program, or OSAP. Sometimes staying in school is still a struggle, and we need to address the changing needs of our society.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for an excellent question. Our government is very committed to making sure that our post-secondary education system is accessible to all our students on the basis of ability to learn, not ability to pay. Helping Ontario students with the cost of tuition is part of our plan to keep post-secondary education accessible and affordable for all of our families. That leads, frankly, to a stronger economy, and it creates good jobs.

Since we introduced the 30% off tuition grant in January 2012, 230,000 students across Ontario of low and middle incomes have benefited. That’s pretty spectacular. It’s a lot of help to our students. Since 2003, our investments have more than doubled the number of students qualifying for aid, while enrolment has increased by 40%.

Despite tough fiscal times, this government will continue to ensure that our students have access to affordable and high-quality post-secondary education, for all of our students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m pleased to hear that we are working to make post-secondary education even more financially accessible to create equal opportunities for all students across Ontario.

Each year, in my great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, there is an increasing number of students preparing to enter their final year of post-secondary education. These students need to know that, on graduation, they will have access to good jobs and have the assistance they need to pay off their loans. However, some students will still find it difficult to accomplish this promptly. Minister, what steps are being taken to support these students as they transition out of the post-secondary system and into the workforce?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Again, I want to thank the member for another good question. While our students work towards obtaining a high-quality education, it’s our responsibility to ensure that we provide necessary assistance after graduation. That’s why we’ve created the Ontario Student Opportunity Grant to limit OSAP debt and the Repayment Assistance Plan to reduce the burden on our students. This program provides young people with income-sensitive support during the repayment of their loans.

We’ve also created, and we just announced this past summer, the Youth Employment Fund, to provide 25,000 young people with an entry point to long-term employment through job placements that offer a chance to learn work skills, experience the real workplace and earn an income at the same time.

Our government remains committed to supporting young people as they work to build their lives and careers debt-free in Ontario, and we’re going to keep doing everything we can through our youth jobs strategy to make sure that our young people get a great start, get into that workplace and help us build a stronger economy—for those young people today and for us into the future.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you can stand here in this House and say that you’ve learned from your mistakes, but the stark reality is that if the opportunity to cancel gas plants came along again, you’d cancel them again, stick taxpayers with the bill again and worry about the fallout afterwards.

After Liberal backroom spin-master Don Guy admitted to cancelling the Mississauga gas plant without knowing the full costs, the member from Nipissing answered, “It’s ... no wonder ... Liberals continue to raise taxes.” Shockingly, the member from Vaughan interjected, “And win elections.” Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? This shows exactly how little regard the member from Vaughan has for the taxpayers of this province—that pouring $600 million down the drain is all in a day’s work. This is the culture of the Liberal Party: If you win the election, nothing else matters.

Premier, since you were busy dialling up the election rhetoric yesterday, can you tell us what you have planned to buy votes in the next election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to share with members a story of what happened to me this summer. I was at a barbecue, and a constituent came up to me and said, “You know, on this gas plant issue, I was shocked to learn that both the Tories and the NDP wanted to cancel it as well. You should tell that story.” So I plan to tell that story.

I have here a brochure from Mary Anne DeMonte-Whelan, the Ontario PC candidate. She said, “The only party that will stop the Sherway power plant is the Ontario PC Party. On October 6, vote Ontario PC.” I have Geoff Janoscik, the candidate in Mississauga South for the Conservatives. He said, “Only Conservative leader Tim Hudak will cancel the Eastern Power gas plant slated to be built on Loreland Ave.”

I can go on, and I will in the supplementary, because it was a promise they made and one that we kept.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Well, I hope the government House leader told that person at that barbecue that you sited the gas plants there that cost half a billion dollars to cancel.

But back to the Premier: Premier, your government is incapable of coming clean to the public. You’re not transparent just because you use the word “transparent.” Actions speak louder than words, and yours is a government that has tried to sell a myth: a government that releases public numbers they knew to be low, while concealing the true cost; a government that says it wants to have all the answers, but then stalls and restricts what can be asked in committee; a government that says that they’ve released all the documents, even after systematically deleting emails so that the truth would be lost forever.

I have little interest in the number of documents you’ve handed over if 50 to 100 of the most incriminating have been deleted forever. Premier, how can we believe anything you say when your actions are the exact opposite of your rhetoric?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, this is one of my favourites: the text of the Mississauga South PC candidate robocalls—they know a lot about robocalls over here.

“Hi there. This is Geoff Janoscik, your Mississauga South Ontario PC candidate. I’m calling about the McGuinty-Sousa power plant that the Liberal government decided to build in your backyard. I am against this power plant, and as your MPP, I will fight to stop the power plant from being built....

“[O]ur team has been knocking on doors every single evening for several months, talking about the power plant and making sure that we defeat the Liberals in this riding and put an end to their bad decisions.”

The fact of the matter is that all parties in this House opposed that power plant. The PCs claimed that they were the only ones that would stop it. In fact, we welcome the new member to their ranks, from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who himself opposed the power plant.

Mr. Speaker, 19 power plants were sited and 17 of them were done correctly—

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

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. Children’s aid societies across the province are facing deep cuts to services following a $50-million cut by this government. For the last five months, some of our province’s most vulnerable children in Hamilton, London, Thunder Bay, Niagara, Waterloo and more than a dozen other communities are facing a future without the support they need.

My question is simple: Why does the government think it’s okay to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars in gas plant scandals but cut services to our most vulnerable children?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you for the question. We had this discussion in this House in the last session with respect to the funding for CASs across the province. Our funding for CASs has not been cut. We know that. Our investments still stand at $1.5 billion. That budget has not been cut. We know that.

We are implementing a new funding formula to make it more equitable, to make it fairer across the province. In the past, it has been based on historical expenditures. We are now basing it on community factors, socio-economic factors and variables that will make it fairer. Through this, we are doing it in a fair way. We are transitioning this across the province over the next five years. These are changes that have been recommended by a commission. These are changes that have been approved and recommended through the OACAS.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the minister as well. In my Welland riding, a regionalized specialized facility for young people in foster care will be shut down in November, resulting in the layoff of 20 of 45 staff. This 37-year-old facility has been a fixture in Welland and Niagara, and as the spokesperson for family and children’s services is reported as commenting, “The centre was closed because it was not financially viable anymore.” To be clear, this decision is not being made in order to improve outcomes for the 20 youth in this centre home.

What does the minister have to say to the youth, to the families, to the workers and to the local long-standing service that says it has no other choice but to close the doors?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you for that question. Let me reiterate that our priority is for our children who are in service. With respect to that, the kids are not being put at risk. Those beds are not being lost. In this case, the services and supports previously offered are going to be transferred to a nearby facility. Child protection services will not be affected. The changes in the system will help create a more viable and sustainable child welfare system, something that I think all of us are working towards.

Our overall provincial investment in this province is not changing. It remains the same. We’re making it fair across the province, and we will always keep children at the centre of all the decisions we make with respect to funding in this province.

CYBERBULLYING

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Attorney General. I know that Ontario has been concerned about the non-consensual distribution of intimate images for a number of years. I also acknowledge that we’ve asked the federal government since 2011 to amend the Criminal Code to protect the people of Ontario from the harms of cyberbullying. Can the Attorney General please provide us an update on the issue of what improvements our government has made in criminalizing the non-consensual distribution of intimate images?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I know this member is concerned about this issue, as we all are in this House. I guess it’s the result of technology that these kinds of situations are existing right now, and something definitely should be done about this.

He’s quite correct that, since 2011, both the Attorneys General of the day, as well as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the minister responsible for women’s issues, have been calling upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to distribute intimate photos or video recordings of a person without that person’s consent.

The issue has been raised a number of times at federal-provincial meetings. I’ve had recent correspondence with the Minister of the Attorney General from Nova Scotia as well. This issue will be raised again at our fall meetings, and we hope that during this session of the federal Parliament this issue will be addressed and a law will be made to make this an offence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I thank the Attorney General for that answer. I’m happy to hear of this government’s continued commitment to amend the Criminal Code in order to make it an offence to distribute non-consensual images. I know that taking action on this issue is a vital step in upholding this government’s commitment to ensure our children are able to thrive in schools and communities that are safe, inclusive and accepting.

I understand that the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials—CCSO—Cybercrime Working Group released a report along with recommendations on cyberbullying. Could the Attorney General please comment on the findings of the report?

Hon. John Gerretsen: He’s quite correct. The coordinating committee is a committee of senior officials in all the various ministries of the Attorney General around this country. They’ve been working very diligently on behalf of the federal-provincial-territorial organization to deal with this issue. They’ve come up with a report that recommends that a new criminal offence be developed in order to address this issue in the Criminal Code. I intend to take up this issue with the federal Attorney General, the new Attorney General, Peter MacKay, as well, within the near future.

We hope that the federal Parliament will deal with this issue this year. I think it has support of all members of the federal House as well. It should be dealt with. It’s all about protecting our children, especially in light of the tragic events that have occurred in various parts of this country over the last number of years. So hopefully a bill will be passed federally so that we can deal with this issue once and for all.

ARBITRATION

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Premier, it has been three weeks since the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference, where municipal leaders told you loud and clear that Ontario’s broken arbitration system must be fixed. Their beleaguered taxpayers can’t afford a system awarding contracts that ignore the economic realities in communities like Scugog, where firefighters received a 26.7% increase. It’s the top priority for municipalities. Given the urgency, I actually expected that you would table an arbitration reform bill yesterday, on the first day that we’re back in the Legislature.

But just as you did when you voted against our capacity to pay act last spring, you’ve let our municipal partners down.

Premier, can you tell me and mayors from small and large communities, communities in every corner of our province, why arbitration reform isn’t a priority for you?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for asking this very important question, an issue that I’ve been engaged in conversations with our municipal leaders as well all through the summer and especially at the AMO. It’s important that we remember some important information that will be helpful for all members as we try a path forward on this important issue.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: For the most part, the system that is in place has worked,