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

September 13, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Sep-13 (PDF)

L079 - Thu 13 Sep 2012 / Jeu 13 sep 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 13 September 2012 Jeudi 13 septembre 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

PROTECTION OF GREAT LAKES

SCHOOL SAFETY

CHILD CARE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION

OF RETIRED PERSONS

CORDUKES/WEBER 12-SIDED BARN

AGINCOURT COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION

NORTHERN ONTARIO RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

PATHWAY OF FAME

PARKINSON SUPERWALK

OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY

QUEEN’S DIAMOND JUBILEE

MEDAL RECIPIENTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

(INVESTIGATION OF HEALTH CARE

SERVICES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’OMBUDSMAN

(ENQUÊTES SUR LES SERVICES

DE SOINS DE SANTÉ)

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

ELECTORAL REFORM

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

PET GROOMERS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

RADIATION SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LITS DE BRONZAGE

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT

BILLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES PROJETS DE LOI ÉMANANT

DU GOUVERNEMENT

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CARE

DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DES ENFANTS ET DES JEUNES

PRIS EN CHARGE

TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT

BILLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES PROJETS DE LOI ÉMANANT

DU GOUVERNEMENT

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CARE

DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DES ENFANTS ET DES JEUNES

PRIS EN CHARGE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 6, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill 82. First and foremost, I’m encouraged by the fact that we have a bill that, for the most part, is clearly in support of the consumer. It’s a bill that puts consumers first, and as a member of the New Democratic Party, I’m happy to see something that puts people first.

Before I begin my specific comments with respect to government Bill 82, it’s important to note some interesting trends in terms of cellphone usage. Cellphones are more and more the primary telecommunication device that most individuals use. Many people do not have a land line and rely upon cellphones as their primary way to communicate with one another: to stay in touch with loved ones, to stay in touch with employers—essentially, the primary means to communicate with other people around the world.

As the use of cellphones increases and becomes the predominant means of communication, it becomes more and more important for us as a government to ensure that there is proper oversight of consumer rights, of affordability, of the contracts and the way in which these services are provided to consumers. As cellphone use increases, as it rises, it’s more and more important that there are strict measures imposed on cellphone or wireless contract providers to protect the consumer. I think that’s a logical connection.

I think it’s important to note that the trend is particularly interesting amongst young people, students, those who are in employment which require travel and particularly, newer employees, people who are just entering the job force whose employment may shift from city to city or from different parts of the city. There is a definite connection with young people, students and the newly employed and the use of cellphones. The issues affecting affordability will affect young people or youth with a higher proportionality as opposed to elders or older members of society.

One of the interesting things that comes to light with this particular bill is the effectiveness of the complaints mechanism as a tool of democracy. We see that the CCTS, the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, received an inordinate amount, a disproportionately high amount of complaints regarding cellphones; that the primary complaint that consumers had with regard to their telecommunication was cellphones. It goes hand in hand with the idea that cellphone usage is increasing, but it also is interesting that there were so many complaints about cellphones.

If I can summarize: Essentially, the primary complaint was with the contracts—lack of disclosure of the contracts, lack of clarity with respect to the fees charged, lack of effective communication in terms of how to cancel one’s contract.

I’ll list some of these specific statistics. For 2010-11, the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services received 8,007 complaints, which constituted a 114% increase over the previous year. The percentage of Ontarians who use cellphones was noted at 77%, and the percentage of complaints received by the CCTS that were in respect of wireless companies or wireless contracts was 62%. Again, that’s the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services. So, well over half of the complaints received by the commissioner were with respect to wireless-related issues.

The complaints broken down in 2010-11: 29.32% of the complaints were related to Bell; 16.92% related to Rogers; and 17.32% related to Telus. Complaints about cellphones and long-distance charges consistently appear on the Ministry of Consumer Services’ annual top 10 consumer complaints.

It’s also of note that cellular phone service is the business category for which the Better Business Bureau in Canada has processed the most complaints this year.

What’s interesting to note here is that this was certainly a key issue among consumers, this was a major issue among consumers—and this is a demonstration of one additional tool that I strongly encourage citizens and residents of Ontario and Canada to make use of: The complaints process is a tool of democracy. Complain about things that you don’t accept. Raise issues about things that aren’t acceptable to you, and it is a way to have your voice heard by the government.

It was something that I found interesting given the malaise or the apathy with respect to political engagement that is plaguing our society, that is plaguing our province. I want to just encourage people to, in any way possible, interact and engage with their community. Be politically active; it’s important. This is another mechanism by which your concerns, that people have raised, have effectively resulted in the government listening. I’m encouraged by that, and I think it’s important that we really look at the complaints process in any area as a tool or mechanism of democracy.

I encourage people to use this tool broadly, though. It’s not limited to this particular area, but it’s a positive example of how we can use this idea or mechanism of complaint—the complaints process—to forward democratic principles.

One area, I think, in which we don’t see enough action is with respect to police accountability. That’s an area where I really encourage people to make use of the existing civilian complaints commission, but we need to expand that.

Looking at some of the positive points of this bill, the number one issue or one of the primary concerns that was raised by consumers was the nature of the contract. The contract that is signed that governs one’s cellphone expenses or the contract or—the terms of one’s cellphone bill are defined by a wireless agreement. These wireless agreements were often riddled with optional fees, hidden fees, hidden expenses that the layperson, that a person without a degree in law, wouldn’t be able to decipher, and they were not written in clear language that was meant to be understood by the consumer.

Because of that, it’s no surprise that many people were left very confused about why their cellphone bills were so high, were left very confused about how they could cancel their cellphone contract, and felt trapped in their cellphone bills. It is currently a very serious issue of affordability. Many people are faced with extremely high cellphone bills month to month, and it is certainly a serious affordability issue.

The requirement of Bill 82 to full disclosure is something that is much needed. It’s concerning that it wasn’t already there. Why it needed to be legislated raises some concerns and some questions, but it’s very encouraging to see that there is now greater protection with respect to providing clear and full disclosure of the contract. This disclosure will include optional and mandatory services like the emergency fee that many people see on their cellphone bills—those are mandatory, and then certain optional fees.

Now, what is also very important, and I think is a clear message in favour of consumers, is that if the contract doesn’t include full disclosure, if it does not satisfy all the requirements of full disclosure, then the consumer can cancel his or her contract without any cancellation fees. I think that’s a strong message in support of the consumer, because if there are any concerns that come up that weren’t disclosed in the wireless agreement, the consumer then has that right to cancel their contract. I think that’s very encouraging.

I’d like to see—my concern is that when someone chooses to engage in that and make use of that right, I want to see what happens with respect to whether there are collection agencies called in and whether or not the wireless supplier honours that.

I know that there are some strong penalties in this bill, but sometimes legislation, which is very well meaning, doesn’t end up being implemented in a way that the consumer actually gets the benefit. So, I am encouraged by the legislation in that regard. I’m curious to see what will happen if an individual claims this was not disclosed in the wireless agreement and chooses to cancel their contract—what the supplier will do in that regard. I’m hopeful that they’ll follow through on this legislation and they don’t take the action of engaging the collection agencies.

Also, another key point that is encouraging in this bill is the protection with respect to contract termination fees. Many people feel very trapped. They find out that there’s a much better contract available, a much better plan available with another provider, but they’re trapped in their own plan, and if they were to cancel, it would cost the equivalent of a year or two years or even more of a plan with another company. They feel that it’s simply impossible, or financially such a burden, such an obstacle to actually cancel their plan. So it’s important to allow the consumer the opportunity to actually cancel their contract with reasonable termination fees.

At first blush, two areas come to mind that aren’t addressed in this bill which are quite important and should have been addressed, and I’m hoping we can look at ways of addressing these in committee hearings. One is current contract holders, people who have a contract right now and what they can do, because the way the bill is written, if you have an existing contract, it will not be subject to the protection in this bill.

So if you already have a cellphone contract and it has a very strict form of cancellation or termination clause that would sometimes be quite exorbitant in terms of cost, you’re not protected at this point. I think there’s a way to address that, and I strongly encourage all members of this Legislative Assembly to look at ways of ensuring that this protection actually applies to people who currently have a contract so that they aren’t stuck for two, three or four years.

The other area that many people complain about—I have constituents who complain about this—is when you travel overseas or even out of the city and you incur roaming fees. Roaming fees are one of the most vague and unclear areas in terms of cellphone usage. People are completely unaware that simply crossing an imaginary line results in the doubling, tripling or quadrupling of their actual fees, and there is no reminder.

There is no update provided that you have incurred this many minutes of roaming or this many megabytes of data while roaming, and if you want to consume any further or use your phone any further, there is an option for you to purchase a roaming package. That type of awareness is not provided. Some cellphone companies do provide it, but by and large, people are left unsure, and they come back with very exorbitant bills, very expensive cellphone bills because they were unaware.

I think that if we want to talk about consumer services and protection of consumers with respect to cellphones, roaming charges is an area that should be addressed. It was left unaddressed in this bill, and I think that’s something we need to look at. Hopefully, that’s an area where we can hear from consumer groups, citizens and residents about how we can address that and some requirements we can place on wireless providers so that we can address that issue.

The list of requirements of a contract is pretty exhaustive, things that one would assume: name of consumer, name and contact info of supplier, date of agreement, terms of agreement, expiry date of the agreement, description that itemizes each service, a statement indicating whether any goods provided are subject to any technological or physical features that restrict their functioning.

So if you obtain a feature that doesn’t actually work on your phone, you should be made aware of that. If there’s a feature that you’re paying for but you require an additional type of handset—you require a smart phone or any other type of particular hardware—you shouldn’t be paying for a service that you can’t actually use on your cellphone. I think that is quite sensible. It makes sense, and it’s something I like that has been included. Terms and method of payment, total amount paid by the consumer—again, all important things that should be included.

The area that I think many people were quite confused by, and I think including this in the contract is very important, is the manner of calculating the amount the consumer is required to pay to the supplier if the consumer cancels the agreement. That’s an area where many people were left guessing. If I cancel my contract, how much is it going to cost me? I think that’s a positive sign that we have that added in there.

The positive side is that if any of these requirements aren’t met, the cellphone provider has this sword of Damocles hanging over their head that the consumer can cancel the contract if they don’t provide all those details. Again, that’s a positive thing.

The other area many constituents have approached me on, and that I think ends up being a very sore spot for many consumers, is when you make a change on your plan. You decide to change something in your plan—you decide to add additional minutes or add voice mail—and all of a sudden you get a letter in the mail saying that you’ve now increased or agreed to renew your contract for another three years or another two years, and there is no agreement.

There is no question about increasing or renewing the term of your contract, but simply by changing one feature, you’ve automatically been deemed to have renewed your contract. I think that’s something that’s been happening to many people. It’s a scary thought when your clear agreement isn’t required to renew a contract. I think that’s absolutely unacceptable.

This bill does include some clear parameters around requiring a clear notification—not a tacit agreement but a clear agreement—that you have acknowledged that you’re renewing your contract and that you make that agreement. I think it requires great attention, because without having a clear acceptance of renewing a contract, it’s completely unfair, and it results in people being trapped in contracts unfairly.

Now there are some concerns in terms of the remedy, and I want to talk about this as an issue of affordability. If a consumer cancels a wireless agreement and the supplier demands payment, the bill indicates that the consumer can commence action in the Superior Court of Justice.

If there’s an issue that comes up and the supplier doesn’t provide the adequate details that were required under the law or there wasn’t full disclosure as required by the law, and the consumer decides to cancel their payment or cancel their contract, but then there’s an action commenced by the supplier—basically the supplier says, “Hey, you didn’t pay your fees. We’re going to take you to collections for that,” the consumer’s allowed to commence a claim in court. You’re basically allowed to go to court. The problem is, how many people have the time, the knowledge or the ability to actually go to court?

So, sure the remedy is there. Sure, if you’re improperly treated by a cellphone provider you can take the issue to court. There is some strong language in terms of the offences and the fines that would be imposed on the corporation: $250,000 is the maximum for a corporation, and $50,000 is the maximum for an individual who is convicted under this offence for not following any of the agreements.

The problem is that requiring court action will preclude a large number of people who can’t take time off from work, are intimidated by the court system, feel that this would just incur further costs by taking it to court and processing it in court—that it will cost them more money without any guarantee of getting a result.

Again, I’m skeptical about that portion of the bill and how well the average consumer will be able to actually employ that. How could a consumer take a matter to court when they’ve never gone to court, and they’re intimidated by the entire process? Hiring a lawyer would be almost counterintuitive. If you’re arguing over a couple hundred dollars, which is significant in terms of your monthly budget, but how are you then expected to obtain legal representation for such a paltry amount, in the scheme of what the lawyer’s fees would be?

I mean this amount may make the difference between affording your groceries or not, but in the context of paying a lawyer hundreds of dollars, it makes no sense to pay hundreds of dollars to a lawyer over $100 or $200 of a contract fee. So, again, I question that area in terms of the remedy, and I encourage perhaps a less legal or a less strict imposition in terms of how you can access a remedy. Going to a board that’s outside of the legal system might be something that’s easier and might be something that a consumer will actually make more use of.

In Canada right now, there’s an indication that over 22.5 million Canadians subscribe to wireless services. Again, specifically in Ontario, 77% of Ontarians are actually using cellphones or subscribe to a cellphone service.

I was once in a class, and my professor was talking about the Internet and how he viewed the Internet should be used. He looked at it like a highway. When you’re driving on a highway, you can to be driving a very reasonable car, and you can still travel 100 kilometres per hour and get to where you want to go. You can be driving in a sports car, you could be driving a luxury sedan, but you’re still able to make use of those roads; you’re still able to travel to where you want to go. Your make and model of car are not determinants of your ability to access the highways.

Similarly, if we want to live in a truly free society, we want to narrow the gap of inequality. We want to increase the equality of opportunity—which is important language, because opportunity exists, but there is a vast inequality of that opportunity. Depending on where you’re from, your community, your background and your access to resources, your ability to access resources and your ability to access opportunity are completely disparate, depending on what your background is.

If we really want to be serious about addressing inequality, addressing poverty reduction, addressing creating a society that’s more fair and equal, we really need to look at how we can make opportunity more equal so that more people can access opportunity. If we accept—and I think we all should accept, that the Internet is an invaluable tool: It is the culmination of global information; it’s a way of sharing and learning, communicating; it’s a way of accessing information. And we refer to this age as the information age: Education is power, information is power.

Then access to this power, access to this information, access to this wealth of data, access to the Internet has to be affordable, has to be equal and has to be something that is not dependent on your socio-economic background. If you are not well off, if you are not wealthy, that doesn’t mean you don’t have the same ability to access the Internet or access information, access data.

In that light, if we look at the Ipsos research that cellphones are now becoming the primary way in which we actually access the Internet, how we actually get information, then it becomes more and more important that our cellphone and wireless contracts are affordable, and particularly that our data portion of that wireless contract is affordable.

The bill does not touch on affordability. It doesn’t touch on making data usage, voice usage and text usage more affordable. I think that’s where we need to head, in terms of our climate right now, financially. We are still hard hit; families are hard hit. People are struggling to make ends meet. People are struggling to pay their bills. In that context, it’s very important that we actually make cellphone usage more affordable, that we make our bills more affordable, that we make what citizens are paying for more affordable.

Why I bring that up is, if we compare what we’re paying here in Canada with the rest of the world, we would be astounded by the differences. Let me touch on some of those areas right now.

There was an initiative, New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, October 14, 2010. The initiative did some research and did some survey work. What they found—what we’ve already known very clearly—is that cellphones are intertwined with our lives, with the way we live and the world we live in; and that over the past five years, the problem is that North America is paying far more than anywhere else in the world and Canada stands amongst the highest, or the most expensive, for cellphone use.

On average in Canada—this is the on-average amount that Canadians pay—for a voice, text and data plan, Canadians pay on average $67.50 per month—$67.50. Remember that number. It’s almost $70 a month; $70 a month in Canada is the average. Do you want to know what the average rate is in Hong Kong or in India? In Hong Kong, the average similar plan—data, text, voice—it’s $70 here in Canada. In Hong Kong, it’s $13.50 for the same plan, far less than half—almost 75% less than what we’re paying.

In India, which we consider a developing nation—it doesn’t have the same infrastructure; it doesn’t have the same technology in terms of the saturation that we have here in Canada, in terms of the infrastructure that we have here in Canada—they’re paying $12.90 per month.

I just need to stress that again. We’re paying $67.50 per month for the similar plan that in Hong Kong and India they’re paying close to $13 per month for. That’s outrageous.

Why is it that we’re paying so much more? We consider ourselves an industrialized, developed nation. Why are our fees so high? It has a lot to do with competition. It has a lot to do with the number of competitors in the industry. I’m sure my colleagues from the Conservative Party would like to hear this: There is far more competition in other countries, there are far more providers in other countries, and there’s a more open market when it comes to provision of wireless services.

Even the States, just across the border, has a more competitive market and much more affordable rates and fees. The majority of companies in the US don’t have roaming across any of the states. You can purchase your plan in one state and use it in any other state and there are no roaming fees whatsoever; that’s a very common occurrence.

Whereas in Ontario and in Canada, it’s a completely different picture.

For basic voice, text and data plans, the cost is around—and this is just a step up from the average. If you look into a little bit better plan—voice, text and data—the cost is around $75 with only four megabytes of data. That’s just unacceptable. I mean, four megabytes of data is a paltry amount; it’s an insignificant amount. With current data usage, you can’t get much with that.

If we compare just some other countries, besides—we’re looking at density. I think someone from the Conservative Party was talking about maybe the issue is density, that Canada’s population is less dense. We have less population compared to other countries. If you look at population size, Denmark and Finland are countries of smaller population than Canada.

In Canada, if we look at a post-paid plan just for voice and text, it’s $38. This is according to the research conducted by the Open Technology Initiative, which was done on October 14, 2010. I’m referring to a chart where they looked at and compared countries like Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, the US and the UK. They found that in Canada, it’s $38.70 for a 250-minute plan. The post-paid plan charge was about 31 cents per minute. In Denmark, they were paying $17 for 240 minutes, and it works out to about seven cents a minute.

So we’re paying 31 cents a minute; they’re paying seven cents a minute in Denmark. In Finland, again, they’re paying about seven cents a minute, where we’re paying 31 cents a minute. So we really need to look at what we can do to address this issue of affordability because, as it stands, we are far too expensive. It is far too expensive to pay for a cellphone here in Canada.

Just to explain how the study worked: In the study, they researched cellphone, text and data services for prepaid, regular post-paid and unlimited post-paid plans. They looked at the various plans you can get where you receive a bill in the mail every month, or the plans where you pay as you go, and they compared various plans by various carriers in 11 countries. To allow a more direct comparison, the study basically broke down the price in US dollars per minute and per text and per megabyte.

I’ve just compared some of the per-minute voice costs. If you look at Canada versus other countries around the world—even our neighbours to the south—we’re paying 31 cents a minute; they’re paying 18 cents a minute. In the UK, it’s 17 cents a minute. If we look at other countries, though, outside of the developed nations—if you look at India, Hong Kong, they’re paying one cent a minute. In Sweden, it’s actually four cents a minute; Taiwan, 12 cents a minute.

There is a serious issue of affordability, and it’s very troubling that we are paying so much. It’s one of those things that’s not going to greatly impact the wealthy, it’s not going to greatly impact those who are very well off, but it is going to make a big difference, a serious difference, in the lives of those who are already hard hit—who are already struggling to afford their monthly rent, their monthly hydro bill, people who are struggling to pay their student debt down. For those individuals, it will make a significant difference.

If we look at texting, texting is a technology that—it’s important to note that there isn’t a significant difference between sending a text locally or internationally. In terms of the usage of data or the usage of the wireless network, it doesn’t actually make a big difference for the provider where the text is being sent. But what we’re charged if we ever send a text internationally is just an outrageous amount, given how much it actually costs the provider. If we compare that to other countries, we find that Canadians and Ontarians are being charged significantly higher than other countries around the world.

If we do a comparison of post-paid plans—your regular plan where you get your bill in the mail on a monthly basis—and we look at what we’re paying in terms of texts: If we compare Canada, for about 250 texts a month, it’s about $5—$4.80. If we compare that to other countries—for example, Sweden: They pay $17.80 for 5,500 texts. So compare 250 to 5,500, and it works out that it’s essentially—they deem it almost unlimited. It’s an unlimited texting plan. For what we’re paying here, we’re paying far, far more.

The area where we’re seeing the biggest problem or the most marked difference is when it comes to our data. Data is, again, the most important area if you look at access to the Internet as being an essential or an important tool. In Canada, we’re paying for our monthly plans, for 500 megabytes, which is a reasonable amount of data that you can actually access and make some good use of: We pay $24 a month on average for 500 megabytes. If we compare that to other countries around the world, Finland is paying $8.90. Denmark is paying close to half, about $17 for 500 megabytes.

If you look at India, it’s completely different; they’re paying $2.10 for 5,120 megabytes. If we look at the UK and the US, they’re paying $15 for 200 megabytes and $7.70 for 120 megabytes. So again, we’re being charged significantly more for our data, significantly more for our voice and significantly more for our text messages.

In Canada and the US, consumers have the highest minimum monthly charge for a complete post-paid cellphone. Other countries that follow similar cost structures are significantly lower, like the UK, Denmark and Finland. On a broader picture, on a broader level of affordability, there is much work that needs to be done. In Ontario, we need to really address this issue if we want to be serious about addressing inequality and equality of opportunity.

Some areas that I think we need to look at, and I want members of this Legislative Assembly to turn their minds to, when it comes to committee hearings and when it comes to looking at ways to improve this bill: One area which many people I’m sure themselves have been affected by, and I have been affected by this, is overusage. Overusage fees: If you have a set amount of minutes that you’ve signed up for, be they 300, 200 whatever amount, you have a set amount of minutes that you signed up for—say it’s $30 a month for 300 minutes.

If you go over those 300 minutes—let’s say you double that or triple that—if you were bumped into the next plan up and the next plan up was $60 for 600 minutes, you’d be fine. But what happens is that cellphone companies don’t, first of all, let you know that you’re over your limit, that you’ve gone over. They don’t bump you or roll you into a higher usage. You end up paying hundreds of dollars because you’ve gone over your minutes, where you could have just paid $60 if you had been bumped up to the next category.

Companies want to make a profit and they want to make money—I understand that—but there has to be some fairness. The best would be if they automatically rolled people into higher minutes. That would be the best. That would be a great step forward in terms of affordability. People would be automatically rolled into a higher category and not have to worry about their overage.

But in the alternative, at the minimum, all cellphone providers, all suppliers, should be required to make it very, very clear when you’re nearing your limit, when you’re at your limit and when you’re over your limit. That should be a minimal requirement. That would be a simple tool—cellphone companies are able to do that, providers are able to do that—and it would be a very serious step forward in terms of making the consumer better protected and insulating them from some serious overuse charges that they could incur.

This has been the subject of a number of complaints. In fact, the CCTS, the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, found people complaining that their data usage was over, and it was over on a regular basis. There’s an example of someone being charged $3,000 for data usage—$3,000 for data usage—when all they required was some notification that “Hey, you’re going over your limit,” and that person could curtail their usage, that person could choose a higher plan.

Many options were available, but instead they racked up the fees, and it turned out that they had been going over by 70% each month, and it could have been dealt with by either bumping them up to a higher plan or curtailing their usage.

Again, if we want to take affordability seriously, then this is an additional area that we need to look at, and that’s having the consumer be notified when they’re going over their usage.

What we’re looking at now in terms of other areas of affordability when it comes to cellphone usage is the connection cellphone companies use between a handset and a contract. What happens is the handset itself is worth far less than the actual termination fee. A provider will have you sign up to a contract and get a free phone—and many people, again due to affordability issues, need that free phone, so they make use of that plan, which is fine.

But what happens is, if they ever need to cancel their phone or they need to cancel their contract—the cost of the phone would make sense if that was a part of the cancellation fee, but they’re charged far more than that. They’re charged far, far more than the actual cost of the phone that they purchased, just to cancel their contract.

That’s an area we really need to look at as well: tying in the use of promotional deals which require one to sign a contract to obtain a phone, and how we can make that more fair, more transparent and ensure that when you cancel your contract, you’re not being charged more than the price of the phone in total.

The other area that I touched on briefly was how we are going to deal with those who are currently in contracts and the fact that this bill doesn’t address that. I think it’s very clear that for existing contracts, the cellphone provider should be required to implement this bill in perhaps a modified fashion. Of course, for a new contract, it’s a very easy mechanism. You have a new contract; you have to fulfil the requirements of this bill, you have to fulfil the requirements of disclosure or your contract can be cancelled.

For existing contracts, people who are trapped in those need to make sure that there’s a way, a modified approach of this bill, to allow them to have some protection as well, whether that is requiring information to be sent out to current contract holders expressing what their contract is in totality and clarity, and requiring that that clarification be sent out with a monthly statement within a certain time period—I mean, that’s one mechanism; that’s one way so that we can at least give current contract holders some protection.

I would say that in committee we should look at amending the bill so that we actually give the same cancellation rights to these current contracts as well They should also be entitled to the same ability to exit their contract or terminate their contract with the same protection provided for new contracts.

On a bigger picture, we’re looking at using technology, using the Internet as a way of engaging our voters and engaging our society. As we move forward, there has been discussion of using cellphones for feedback in terms of research and surveys. There’s been discussion of using or moving towards online voting, and we’ve seen online voting work at least at some level. At an internal party level, we’ve seen that there’s a use of online voting. If we want to make democracy more accessible, if we want to move with the times, we need to change our model.

In changing our model, the cellphone may be the tool that allows us to engage more members of society quickly, in a more efficient manner, and may encourage participation.

On a broader picture, this tool may be the tool that gives us more participation when it comes to politics and more participation when it comes to community engagement, and may reverse the trend of growing apathy. As voter turnout goes down, as less people are inclined to go to the ballot box, perhaps we need to look at different ways of engaging people, and politically as well as in a society sense, perhaps we can use this tool.

If we can use the cellphone as a method of communication and as a way of transferring knowledge and transferring information—and we’ve seen the signs that people are trending toward using cellphones more as their means of communication and Internet access—then we are coming to a point where this becomes more and more a necessity of life. It becomes more and more a requirement of a modern society.

We are also faced with, perhaps, the potential fear that certain people will be left behind. If certain people are left behind and we want to have a more democratic and free society, then we are not fulfilling our duty here as legislators.

We’ve seen this tool used in terms of the Arab Spring. We’ve seen people using technology as a vehicle for democracy, as a vehicle for freedom and as a way of inspiring change in the world. While there are some criticisms of technology and its sometimes negative impact on the social fabric of society—that people are not engaging one another, that there’s certain etiquette that we’re losing as we talk to one another and you see groups of people who are on their cellphones—there’s still the positive side where it can be used for progressive politics. It can be being used for positive ideas spreading in a society, and it can be used as a tool towards greater democracy and freedom.

I encourage any tool that promotes those values. If we can use our technology more effectively in a way to spread a message of freedom, if we can spread a message of participation and we can spread a message of equal opportunity and equal access, then we should do everything we can to make this tool more accessible to all people because, on a broader level, that’s a way of making our society more fair.

So I look forward to taking this bill into committee and addressing some much needed amendments.

I applaud the government. I think it’s important to applaud where there are some positive things done. It’s important to put partisanship aside and say it was a good step, and I think it’s important, as parliamentarians, that we acknowledge each other when there’s a positive idea. This was much needed. Constituents have complained about it, and there are certainly some key points that have been addressed.

As always—and I think that the government should take this seriously but again take it in a good light—there’s always more that can be done. I urge the government side to heed the advice of the opposition members, all party members, and not be blinded by partisanship. If there’s a good idea that comes to the floor, whether it comes from the New Democratic Party or my colleagues from the Conservatives, who are unlikely to have that many good ideas—just kidding, to see if you’re listening—I encourage you to take any idea that’s positive. Don’t worry about the credit.

Let’s just work on making protection for consumers and take it seriously, because consumers need that protection. There are so many laws and so many issues that are in favour of the supplier, producer, retailer. We really need to make sure that we take care of the consumer, and let’s take any ideas that are effective in doing that and implement those to make sure that, at least in this one area, we make life more affordable, we make the consumer more aware of his or her rights, and that the contracts and the agreements that people get into are more transparent. I think that we’d be doing a good job for the people of Ontario, and we’d be doing our job that we were sent here to do.

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It’s a pleasure to rise in debate on Bill 82. Mr. Speaker, this bill is all about protecting consumers in cellphone and wireless service agreements.

As we all know, cellphone contracts are a huge issue for many Ontarians. This is a pocketbook issue. Our government’s bill contains measures that will reduce costs, cap cancellation fees, prevent automatic renewal of the contracts, and will make contracts more fair and transparent. And at any time, if any individual wants to cancel their contract, he or she can cancel with a modest cancellation fee.

Mr. Speaker, consumer protection is a matter for the provinces. That’s why our government has brought this bill forward, and that is why there is a lot of independent support for this bill. Much of the problem in the wireless industry falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government and CRTC rules. I encourage the members from opposite benches to call on the federal government to take strong action. All this bill is about is empowering consumers to make informed choices, to make informed decisions, when they are spending their hard-earned dollars.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, in his presentation, spoke about regulations. When we brought in the HST, that HST implementation eliminated a significant number of regulations—which the member’s party and leader have voted against.

I’m also looking forward to sitting down at committee for further debate on this bill.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I endured the hour from the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton. I don’t say that to be critical; I just think it was long. An hour on this bill is an endurance test, actually.

In fairness, we would say that the consumer needs to be protected, and I think the remarks he made with respect to comparisons with India, Hong Kong, other countries: Canada is way out of line, technically. I agree. I like the nuance to the bill. I will be speaking. I wish I had an hour too. I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent for an hour here now.

The point being, though, I really feel badly for David Orazietti, the member from Sault Ste. Marie. I think he was really on the right track here. I would have jumped on board entirely because he was right down at the private members’ level. I think the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton is on the same page. Let’s put the consumer first and in front of this issue.

More importantly, Ontario—this is going to come under the CRTC, as you know; you’re a lawyer—and as such, we don’t need a whole meandering of regulations and exemptions.

Section 10 is worth reading, as you know. It’s the whole disclosure part.

We need to get a consistent and uniform system across Canada. The biggest thing that troubles most people, the viewers here today, is that if you’re out of the province or out of the country, you’d better check out a roaming plan. My biggest surprise was a couple of years ago, when I was receiving calls, making calls and downloading stuff when I was out of the country; I was in Europe. When I got the roaming charge, I was floored. I just couldn’t believe it.

There’s stuff in here, protecting services, whether it’s voice or data, that we need to make sure we’re on the right page and be consistent with other provinces on.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I just want to commend my colleague here from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for a great disclosure of how he sees this bill this morning.

I agree with him: We need to give credit where credit is due—to the member who proposed this bill, along with the member from Sault Ste. Marie, who has got a similar bill that’s looking at consumer protection as well. Give kudos where kudos are deserved. Let’s work towards bringing greater protection for consumers. Let’s look at having that information available where there are clear parameters and clear understanding of what the disclosure is, knowing exactly what I’m purchasing.

When you buy a pair of running shoes, you know what you’re getting. When you’re buying a cellphone, it’s not that easy anymore, where you have the hidden fees. I have a couple of boys who, with the jobs that they have, decided to purchase their phone. The contract went in the garbage, and it was only a couple of months later that they found out how expensive it was. That’s one of the mistakes that a father learns from, but you’ve got to let those boys make those mistakes.

My friend alluded to something else where we—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I know; I just love bringing up my boys.

Another thing that my friend alluded to is that we’re looking to maybe use this as an opportunity to bring a more inclusive province, to get more involvement from individuals. That raises a big red flag with me. The reason why it raises a big red flag with me is because we do not have the services in northern Ontario that are available here in southern Ontario. I myself as an MPP am challenged extremely hard with having regular communication with my constituents throughout my riding and my office.

I like the intent of the bill. It’s really good, and it’s going to be really nice to discuss this at committee. We need to keep that, in fact, not all of us have the same service across this province.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: The remarks that were just delivered by the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton on Bill 82 I thought were very, very relevant, and I thought his detail was much appreciated. I thought, generally, it was a very positive speech.

I think all of us are certainly concerned about consumer protection in the wireless field. This is something that, 10 years ago, wasn’t a particular problem, but you’ve seen a real change. People who at one time were solely dependent on land lines for communication—we’re witnessing a significant move from a traditional land line to wireless technology throughout our lives.

I could just share something. We had a short family holiday in Saint John, New Brunswick, and my daughter, who is 13, of course wanted to communicate with her friends back in Peterborough, so she had her BlackBerry, plus her iPad. She was able to use the BlackBerry to call her friend back in Peterborough, and was able to use her iPad to call up her friend on the screen and engaged in a fairly detailed conversation about the family trip and tour that we were experiencing in Saint John, New Brunswick, back with her friends in Peterborough.

So that was a very interesting thing to watch, and of course, as has been mentioned by my friend from Durham, we got back to Peterborough to see the roaming charges for her to have that great conversation with some of her friends back in Peterborough.

I think this bill, which will ultimately go to committee, is an opportunity for all of us in this House to join together to really come up with an outstanding consumer protection bill in this particular area. We’re witnessing great corporate concentration in the market, and there needs to be a balance with consumer protection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton, you have two minutes for a reply.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Brampton South, the member from Durham, my own colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin and the member for Peterborough for their remarks and for their responses.

One area that I didn’t touch on in my speech and that I wanted to touch on a little bit more, in terms of a potential way of dealing with the high costs, which I mentioned before, is that there are limited—this may be a bit odd coming from the NDP side, but there are a limited number of competitors in the cellphone market here in Ontario or here in Canada. Sometimes there’s an illusion of greater competition, but if you look at Rogers, Rogers owns Fido and chatr. Koodo, which looks like another cellphone company, is actually owned by Telus, and Bell owns Solo.

So again, we don’t really have a great deal of competition. Two new companies that made it into the market were Public Mobile and Wind, which did actually help in creating some unlimited plans, which I think definitely had a positive impact on the rates of other companies. But that may be an area where we need to look at opening up the market to allow smaller companies to come in and compete.

I would encourage those smaller companies to be Canadian companies so that we can keep industry and innovation here in Ontario, here in Canada. But I’m sure that we can come up with different strategies to allow for an opening of that market and a way to ensure that we create jobs here in Ontario, that those businesses that are encouraged to develop or to be established here have a job tax credit so that if they create jobs in Ontario, if they create infrastructure here in Ontario, if they train people in Ontario, they get tax credits based on that.

But I think we can look towards creating more competition to bring down those rates, and one of those ways might be encouraging local industry or local, Canadian-based, new companies. Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my niece from Winnipeg, Tania Webster. Welcome.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Today, in the west members’ gallery, I have with me constituents of mine from Nepean–Carleton. They’re the family of Eric Leighton. I have with us Sheri and Patrick and their daughter, Kaitlyn Leighton. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park today and for being so courageous over the past year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Today, visiting us from the riding of Niagara Falls, we have with us in the members’ gallery Jacquie and Sam Seaver, parents of page Ethan Seaver, and their friend Judy Murray. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

We also have in the Speaker’s gallery today a delegation from the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers of India, a multi-legislative body made up of federal and state parliamentarians from the Republic of India. They are accompanied today by the Consul General of India. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests today.

Applause.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On Monday, August 27, 2012, the member from Cambridge, Mr. Leone, rose on a question of privilege concerning the government’s failure to produce certain documents requested by the Standing Committee on Estimates.

The government House leader, Mr. Milloy; the member from Timmins–James Bay, Mr. Bisson; the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, Mr. Nicholls; the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Mr. Yakabuski; the member from Nipissing, Mr. Fedeli; the member from Leeds–Grenville, Mr. Clark; and the member from Beaches–East York, Mr. Prue, also spoke to this matter.

Having reviewed the notice provided by the member from Cambridge, the subsequent written submissions of the government House leader and of the member from Cambridge, the August 27 report of the Standing Committee on Estimates, relevant Hansards for the committee and various parliamentary authorities, I am now prepared to rule on that matter.

The details of what occurred in the committee are contained in the above-mentioned documents, but the essential chronology is as follows:

On May 16, the Standing Committee on Estimates formally adopted a motion requesting that the Minister of Energy, the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority provide, within two weeks, all correspondence relating to decisions in 2010 and 2011 not to proceed with the construction of the power plants in Oakville and Mississauga, respectively.

On May 30, the minister responded to the request by indicating that it would not be appropriate to disclose the correspondence because the files were confidential and because many of them were either subject to solicitor-client or litigation privilege or else highly commercially sensitive; their disclosure would tend to prejudice ongoing negotiations and litigation. The Ontario Power Authority responded in a similar vein on the same day.

On June 5, in the Standing Committee on Estimates, a motion was brought forward by Mr. Leone calling for a report from the committee to the House with respect to the minister’s May 30 decision not to provide the requested documents. The committee debated the motion and amendments to it on that day and three subsequent meetings of the committee—June 6, June 12 and July 11—finally adopting the version of the motion contained in the committee’s August 27 report to the House.

On July 11, an agreement having been just reached to relocate the Mississauga plant, the minister provided some of the requested documents. The minister indicated that other documents would not be provided to the committee because they were subject to various legal privileges.

On August 27, shortly before the member for Cambridge rose on his question of privilege, the Standing Committee on Estimates reported that, for reasons indicated in the report, the government had not produced certain correspondence that the committee had ordered to be produced, and that this non-production may raise a matter of privilege. The report also recommended that the Minister of Energy be compelled to provide the documents requested by the committee without delay and that the minister be held in contempt if he refuses to do so.

Given these developments, the nature of parliamentary powers respecting the production of documents requires some examination. With respect to committee powers, standing order 110(

b) provides as follows: “Except when the House otherwise orders, each committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and things.” This standing order effectively empowers committees, including the Standing Committee on Estimates, to order the production of documents.

Further to this point, in a March 9, 2011, ruling dealing with a non-production incident in the Canadian House of Commons, Speaker Milliken found that there was a prima facie question of privilege where there was non-compliance with a production order made by a committee; the committee’s report on non-compliance was not concurred in before a question of privilege was raised in the House.

Between the time of the raising of that question of privilege and the time that the Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie question of privilege, the House made an order for production with respect to the same documents; nevertheless, the ruling clearly indicates that it was based on non-compliance with the production order of the committee, not of the House.

Therefore, non-compliance with a production order made by either a committee or a House can, in a proper case, constitute a matter of privilege.

Turning to the issue of whether the matter before me is such a case, members will know that as a matter of parliamentary privilege the House has the right to institute inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents. The House exercises this right when it gives mandates to committees and delegates powers to them; the committees in turn carry out the mandates and exercise the powers within the limits of their authority.

Therefore, when the Standing Committee on Estimates considers the estimates, it does so pursuant to standing orders 59 and 60, and the order of the House referring the estimates to that committee; when it orders production of documents relevant to its mandate, it does so pursuant to standing order 110(b).

The right to order production of documents is fundamental to and necessary for the proper functioning of the assembly. If the House and its committees do not enjoy this right, then the accountability, scrutiny and financial functions of Parliament—which go to the core of our system of responsible government—would be compromised.

At meetings of the Standing Committee on Estimates, the Minister of Energy did not assert that the committee had no right to inquire into the matter before it or that it had no power to send for the documents in question. Rather, the minister indicated that legal and other considerations should militate against the production of all requested documents.

But as Speaker Milliken indicated in the following excerpt from the Afghanistan ruling, page 2,043 of Hansard for April 27, 2010, parliamentary privilege—of which the right to order production of documents is but one category—trumps such considerations:

“Procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents, even those related to national security.”

Furthermore, pages 978 and 979 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice provides as follows:

“The standing orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format—and that they are located in Canada. They can be papers originating from or in the possession of governments, or papers the authors or owners of which are from the private sector or civil society (individuals, associations, organizations, etc.).

“In practice, standing committees may encounter situations where the authors of or officials responsible for papers refuse to provide them or are willing to provide them only after certain parts have been removed. Public servants and ministers may sometimes invoke their obligations under certain legislation to justify their position. Companies may be reluctant to release papers which could jeopardize their industrial security or infringe upon their legal obligations, particularly with regard to the protection of personal information. Others have cited solicitor-client privilege in refusing to allow access to legal papers or notices.

“These types of situations have absolutely no bearing on the power of committees to order the production of papers and records. No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records. However, it may not be appropriate to insist on the production of papers and records in all cases.”

In many parliamentary jurisdictions, the House and its committees often accommodate or respect security, legal and public policy considerations; they often accept reasonable excuses for non-production. However, these authorities also indicate that a decision to be selective with respect to production is a decision for the House or the committee.

In the case at hand, the Standing Committee on Estimates made a production order despite the arguments made by the minister. My response to the government House leader’s claim that the committee did not turn its mind to the reasons for non-production proffered by the minister is,

—First, it was not obliged to do so.

—Second, the documents could have been offered to the committee under conditions that would both satisfy the needs of the committee and the minister: for instance, being received in a closed session without public disclosure, or in an acceptably redacted version. The Chair put forward this notion on one occasion, and it was passed by without comment by any member.

—Third, the government House leader in his written submission repeatedly points to what a difference a clear motion would have made to the Minister of Energy’s ability to fully respond to the committee’s request; that is, a motion that explicitly expressed the committee’s request even for documents that are highly commercially sensitive, for which solicitor-client privilege is claimed and/or are subject to litigation privilege. It is claimed that the minister could have and would have complied in that scenario.

During the time in question, the minister could have requested the committee to pass just such a motion, making it explicit that it still demanded the requested documents, notwithstanding the minister’s wish to withhold disclosure for reasons stated in his May 30 reply to the committee’s original request. The record does not show that the minister proactively did so.

The Standing Committee on Estimates was unquestionably entitled to request the documents sought from the Minister of Energy, and in the end the minister had an obligation to comply with the committee’s call for those documents. The committee did not accept the minister’s reasons for withholding the document and persisted in its demand during an extended period of time.

I am therefore satisfied that a prima facie case of privilege has been established.

However, in the face of all of the submissions, the committee transcripts and its report to the House, it seems possible to me that, but for the lack of frank communication, this matter might have been settled in the estimates committee some time ago. Further, given that in his submission the government House leader wrote, “If the House chooses to issue the requested order or the committee chooses to pass a motion that clarifies its position with respect to the motion of May 16, the government will abide by the will of the Legislature,” I am hopeful that there is a possibility that the matter still can be settled.

I want to quote two passages from Speaker Milliken’s April 27, 2010, Afghan detainee ruling: “(I)t seems to me, that the issue before us is this: Is it possible to put into place a mechanism by which these documents could be made available to the House without compromising the security and confidentiality of the information they contain? In other words, is it possible for the two sides, working together in the best interest of the Canadians they serve, to devise a means where both their concerns are met? Surely that is not too much to hope for....

“The fact remains that the House and the government have, essentially, an unbroken record of some 140 years of collaboration and accommodation in cases of this kind. It seems to me that it would be a signal failure for us to see that record shattered in the third session of the 40th Parliament because we lacked the will or the wit to find a solution to this impasse.”

I, too, have immense faith in the abilities of the honourable members of this House. I know that a solution can be found to this impasse. All sides need to exercise sobriety in this. Political fortunes should not be the motive for eroding the supremacy of Parliament or ignoring the best interests of citizens in this province. Assiduous attention should be paid to dealing with matters such as this responsibly.

Therefore, inspired by the precedent of Speaker Milliken’s innovative ruling in this Afghan detainee case, I am going to presume leave of this House and set this matter aside for the moment. I ask that the three House leaders take it upon themselves to find a path that can satisfy the request of the estimates committee. If this cannot be accomplished by the end of the day, Monday, September 23, then I will return to the House with a statement on a motion by the member from Cambridge that would be appropriate in the circumstances.

I thank the member for Cambridge, the government House leader, the member for Timmins–James Bay, the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the member for Nipissing, the member for Leeds–Grenville and the member from Beaches–East York for speaking to this matter, and I thank the member for Cambridge and the government House leader for their written submissions.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order for the member of Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Where do I start? I’m a little bit surprised. I just want—a couple things need to be said at this point.

First of all, what is clear is that there has been a prima facie case of contempt that has been found. If we look at the precedent in regard to what Speakers have done both nationally and provincially, we have—you know, I can go through and cite all of the various cases, but the presumption has always been, on the part of the Speakers, except for the Afghanistan case, to immediately take up that matter before the House.

The case of Afghanistan was very different because we were talking about national security and there was some sense on the part of everyone, “Okay, we kind of get it.” But this, as you said, has nothing to do with that. You can’t hide behind sub judice, client-solicitor privileges etc., in order to not produce the documents. There’s a clear responsibility on the part of whoever is summoned before a committee to co-operate with the committee when it comes to evidence, including what is given as far as paper.

If you look at the various cases in 2001, March 19, the case of Speaker Milliken, there was such a case and immediately the motion was taken up. On March 9, 1998, under Parent, again, the motion was taken up immediately following the finding of a prima facie case of contempt. The list goes on. I’m not going to go through it because it would just be going on further.

But, listen, if the House leaders would have been able to resolve this by now, we would have done it. That’s the point. It’s abundantly clear, Speaker, that the government members at committee did not want to compel the minister to produce those documents. The minister didn’t want to produce the documents, and I would presume that the government, in its whole, didn’t want to produce those documents. If there was a way forward, there would have been some attempt on the part of the minister or the House leader to try to find a way for us to deal with this.

That’s why this is a matter that has to be taken up immediately by the House by way of motion. It is up to this House to decide at this point how we’re going to deal with it and the precedent is pretty clear that it is us, the House, that makes these decisions and it’s not, in this particular case, to be punted off to the House leaders. I’ll wait for further comment from my colleagues, but I urge you strongly that we don’t go down this path.

We are currently trying to negotiate how we’re going to get various legislation through the House, with the House leaders. We’re trying to deal with trying to strike our committees. Throwing this into the House leaders’ meetings, quite frankly, is not going to help the creation of committees in this House or the movement of the legislative agenda of the government through the House.

Your punting that issue to the House leaders’ meeting, I think, is going to lead to very difficult House leaders’ meetings at which the government’s House agenda will be held up because we’ll be seized with this matter. The government will never agree, and we’ll have to come back in September and deal with the motion. So let’s deal with it now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. I share the concerns of the member for Timmins–James Bay, but by way of clarification, I want to get something on the record as well, in the interests of accuracy. September 23 is a Sunday, and in your ruling, you’ve indicated by Monday, September 23. I would like to get that on the record, that September 24 is the Monday.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: On the issue at hand, I share the view of my colleague from Timmins–James Bay that you have found a prima facie case of breach of privilege here and that the motion should be the next item of business.

We know what difficulties there have been in House leaders’ meetings to this date, trying to re-establish committees, for example. We know that there has been less than co-operation on the part of House leaders on a number of matters. To believe that this matter will somehow be dealt with in the intervening week, I think, is asking a little much.

The committee was well aware, and I think the government was well aware, of what the likely finding of this motion on the breach of privilege would be, given Speaker Milliken’s ruling on the Afghan detainee issue in the federal Parliament of 2010. Clearly, you have found a prima facie case for contempt here, for breach of privilege, and I think the matter should be dealt with forthwith by this House so that this does not linger on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the official opposition House leader, I too want to join in previous colleagues’ comments, both the member from Timmins–James Bay and the member from Pembroke-Renfrew—somewhere over there in eastern Ontario. It’s a wonderful riding and a good member.

The fact of the matter is, this is such an important point of history for this Parliament. We’ve not dealt with this before. We’ve not dealt with the fact that the government refused to honour or respect a point of privilege by the honourable member from Cambridge and, at the same time, the estimates committee coming forward and demanding—requesting the production of documents.

I respect fully—we’ve all studied, as you obviously have, Mr. Speaker—obvious in your ruling and, I think, a very correct application of Speaker Milliken’s previous rulings with respect to the Afghani case, and also the case of the production of financial documents by one of the committees of the House of Commons and a refusal of the government of the day to produce those documents.

Clearly, your ruling today is a shot across the bow to the government. The government should be ashamed of its actions in this case. As the honourable House leader for the NDP said, if we could have resolved this matter in both committee and in House leaders’, we would have done so, I say respectfully, Mr. Speaker.

We can’t even get the committees re-established in this House, I guess because the government doesn’t want any more hearings on Ornge, and it probably doesn’t want the estimates committee to be seized with this matter, because it’s got to be terribly embarrassing for the government when you had to go all the way to the Speaker to be told to do the right thing on behalf of the people of Ontario and disclose the financial numbers and the true cost around the political cancellation of both the Oakville power plant and the Mississauga power plant.

I have one request, Mr. Speaker, because I agree with the member from Timmins–James Bay that to punt this to House leaders is probably not the most productive thing to do, although I do respect that you did put a time limit on that, as Speaker Milliken did in the Afghani detainee case. I think we should deal with this matter on the floor of the House now and ask to—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again, it’s unprecedented for this Parliament to be seized with such a matter. The fact of the matter is, we can do it, move to committee of the whole House and try and deal with it here on the floor in a very public way. This matter should be dealt with in public, not in the secrecy of House leaders’ meetings.

If that is not acceptable, I would ask at least the courtesy that the honourable member from Cambridge, whose privileges have been breached, be allowed to place his motion. He’s prepared to place a motion to move this to a more appropriate committee so that this matter, again, can be dealt with in an open way, in an honest way, in a transparent way.

Once again, shame on the government for putting all of us in this position.

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I just want to begin by saying that on this side of the House we thank you for your ruling. I’d also point out—although we’ve heard from members opposite—that I’m very respectful of standing order 13(b), which outlines that no debate shall be allowed on a Speaker’s ruling. I respect the fact that, after much reflection, after research into precedents as well as what had happened with the committee, you have reached your conclusion.

Anyone who has been following this closely, anyone who had looked at the debate within estimates, with the submissions that were put forth, both orally and written—I know from my vantage point but I also know from the opposition—will know that we are dealing with an extremely complex and complicated matter. We are dealing with issues around solicitor-client privilege, around commercial confidences, around the power of committees, around many precedents and many issues, which as you pointed out today, that Parliaments—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First, I would ask—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. I would ask that everyone show respect when the Speaker is standing and not to add extra comments when I get silence.

Now, I would ask the government House leader to finish his point of order and that he not revisit the ruling but talk about what is the topic, and that is my recommendation.

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank you for the recommendation. I think that it recognizes the complexity of the situation. I just want to simply state that on this side of the House, we are very happy to comply with the ruling. I have a lot more optimism than the other speakers about the ability of House leaders to reach an agreement on this.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleagues, my two fellow House leaders, and I know that neither of them would ever want to leave the impression in the House that this has ever been dealt with at House leaders’ meetings. In fact, it has never been a topic on the agenda. It was something that has been dealt with by estimates. Now that you have asked House leaders to take a look at it, it will go to the top of our agenda, and Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure you that the government will work co-operatively to find a solution to what, as I said and I think you have recognized, is a very complex situation.

So, again, I thank you for the ruling, and I stand here today to commit the government’s full co-operation in reaching a solution by the date that you’ve put forward—or actually, I think the day after you put forward.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First, let me be clear about one thing. I appreciate the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke’s correction of the date. It is the Monday that I am making reference to, and it shall be changed to the 24th. I appreciate that.

So that we have a clear understanding of what the points are to be made for this issue, I will come back to recognize the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear, because we understand that you’ve made a ruling in regard to the prima facie case of contempt, and we’re not arguing; that is decided. But you said you had a recommendation, and I think what the majority of the House is telling you here is that that recommendation is not going to work. The majority of this House wants this issue dealt with now, because the problem in punting this over to the House leaders, first of all, is, as I said, that the government and the opposition have not found a way to deal with this at House leaders. There doesn’t seem to be a will to make that happen. The government has not reached out.

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Listen, I think we should all be very calm here.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Well, then say things that are factual.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Okay, thank you. It is pretty clear at this point that the House leaders have not dealt with this for a reason, and that is because it has always been felt that this was an issue that arose out of committee. It was brought to the House by a proper form, which was Mr. Leone to get up on his point of privilege. The normal precedent for these things to be dealt with is that the motion be taken up immediately. It is clear, Mr. Speaker—and I don’t know how to tell you this any other way—that the majority of the House does not agree with your recommendation and believe that this matter—

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Challenge the Chair.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No. Members should understand the standing orders. The recommendation of the Speaker is that he’s reaching out, trying to find if there is some consensus for it to be dealt with in the way that you’ve suggested, and the majority of this House is telling you no. I would ask you to reconsider and to come back and deal with this now as a proper motion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Cambridge.

Mr. Rob Leone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate the time that you took to rule on this matter. There were lots of back-and-forth documents that were going—transcripts from Hansard and letters from the House leader and myself and others who contributed to the debate when I rose on a point of privilege.

I do want to say, on the point of the prima facie breach, that I think the ruling is sound. I agree with that ruling. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I heard you say was that this direction that you want to, in essence, put this in the hands of the House leaders was a “recommendation.” I think what this House is looking for from the Speaker is a directive to actually state that we have to solve this matter. I think we have to do that very firmly.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, being someone who was at estimates for the duration of this debate, that we tried to deal with this in estimates. We tried very long to deal with this in estimates. We spent more than seven hours—probably close to 10 hours—debating the various motions that were put before estimates committee. The estimates committee has been logjammed on the basis of the fact that we’re dealing with this particular matter, and it just hasn’t been able to be resolved there.

I can see what happens if it goes back to estimates committee, where we’ll have, time and time again, the kind of obstruction that we saw on the government side on all the things that we put forward in that committee.

We’re here today because of the committee’s failure to get the documents it has requested. That’s why we’re here today. We’re here today because the estimates committee could not get the documents, and we’re hopeful that this House can actually do its job: that the opposition can hold that government to account. That’s our job.

I do want to make very clear, because I read and listened to the government House leader very intently with respect to his point, that the clarity of the motion did not suggest what we were actually looking for. I do want to restate that in the original motion, Mr. Speaker, we asked for all documents and all—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m loath to interrupt, but I want to remind the member that we’re not talking about the issue of what went on before; we’re talking about the point of order. The point of order is to talk about the recommendation.

Let me also be clear once and for all about this: Any recommendation I have is within my ruling. This is a ruling. This is not just one part, two parts, three parts; I’m making my ruling, and inside of it is a direction that the member has asked for.

Please finish your point of order.

Mr. Rob Leone: I don’t have very much more, Mr. Speaker.

I also note in your ruling that you said that you were hopeful that the House leaders would be able to do that. I hope that hope turns into an absolute necessity, because we need these documents to do our job.

I do want to make it clear, though, that we asked for all documents at the Standing Committee on Estimates—asked for and requested them in the proper manner, going through the procedures that we knew. We couldn’t do it in estimates, and I’m hopeful this House can finally get to the bottom of what happened with the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Point of order from the member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I’m appreciative of the fact that you concluded that, on the face of it, prima facie, there was a violation of privilege. I think that is obvious to all who read the transcripts, who sat through those committee hearings, who understand our function, our duties and our rights.

Speaker, we went through many days on this, and I’m saying that because in your recommendation to essentially put it back to the House leaders, you have to recognize that if there had been the potential in the course of those days to amend the demand for material, to heal the breach, then that could have well been done then, sir, through many a day of discussion. The motion that you considered that came from the committee had been amended in the course of discussion because we tried to work it down to the heart of it so that we could find what common ground was possible to find and move it forward.

This government does not recognize that it is not a majority. It does not recognize the legitimacy of the majority of this Legislature—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Again, I’ve been providing some leeway for comments on this issue, but the point of order and what I am listening for is not to challenge the ruling, not to revisit what my ruling is about, but to speak specifically about the recommendation within the ruling. I would like you to stay focused on that, please, without comment about the previous activities that have taken place on all sides. I’m talking about this particular issue here.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker. If I may complete my remarks: I understand the need to focus on your recommendation within the ruling. Since we have already had the experience of seeing whether or not that sort of accommodation was possible aside from this chamber, I have concluded and I believe the majority have concluded that that isn’t possible. We need the debate now and a decision by this body on how to proceed.

I would ask you to reconsider that part of your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Peterborough.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to make reference to standing orders 13(

a) and (b): “13(

a) The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of privilege and points of order. In making a decision on a question of privilege or point of order or explaining a practice, the Speaker may state the applicable standing order or authority.” Then (

b) goes on to state, “No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I want to add my voice to our House leader, the member from Timmins–James Bay, and, from the estimates committee, the member from Toronto–Danforth.

This is not a challenge to your chair, this is not in any way impugning on your ability to make rulings. What we’re questioning here is simply the recommendation. With all due respect, sir, Milliken—there are many, many cases—and you, of course, have cited them yourself. The House leader has cited many others. There’s no question that this is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. We all agree on that.

But we’re talking here about the cost of relocating gas plants. We’re not talking about a case of national security of Afghan detainees. We’re talking about simple documents that point to simple costs. And surely, having gone the route that they’ve already gone and coming back to this chamber, it’s pretty clear that this is the forum in which to deal with that.

Again, if it could be resolved at House leaders, it could have been resolved at the estimates committee. It was not resolved at the estimates committee. For the same reasons that it wasn’t resolved there, it will not be resolved at House leaders. The majority of House leaders are—

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: You know what? The Speaker ruled.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Excuse me. The majority of House leaders have already spoken.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You heard from the majority of House leaders. Our leader and the official opposition leader are in accord. That’s two out of three, sir. How will it make any difference going back to House leaders than dealing with it today? Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First, let me be clear about assumptions: I won’t make them. Let me also be clear that I am not suggesting, in any way, shape or form, that this House should not be considering this matter.

What I am asking, in my ruling, is to allow a specific named amount of time be dedicated to the House leaders to see if resolve could be found, and in the event that it’s not possible, it will return to the House.

It is now time for oral—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, may I, on a point of order?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve made my ruling.

It is now time for question period. The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Acting Premier, the education minister: Minister, it’s been 10 months since the election. We’ve actually gone backwards when it comes to creating jobs. The deficit’s actually gotten larger, not smaller. You basically paralyzed any kind of decision-making by government to risk everything on a by-election for four and a half months, and now we find that we may be paralyzed here for some time because the energy minister refuses to release documents related to the cost of the Mississauga gas plant.

The House leader says, “Well, it’s complex.” The complexity seems to be deciding whether to use a printer or send forward an email—no more than that. I’d ask you to take some action.

To the minister: We found out that the deficit between 2010-11 went from $14 billion to $13 billion, in public accounts. That’s only $1 billion. Surely it’s not going to take us 15 more years to get back in balance. That’s not progress. That’s digging the hole even deeper.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Certainly, on a day where public accounts is released—and we make it very clear that the deficit for 2011-12 is $13 billion. It is $3.3 billion ahead of the 2011 budget projections, 47% lower than forecast in 2009. At the same time, program spending growth was held below 1%, lower again than the 2011 budget target. We’ve been able to accomplish that, despite challenging fiscal times because we have made difficult choices.

One of those choices, which we believe is fair and responsible, is to freeze public sector wages, and that is allowing us to ensure that we create jobs and grow the economy. So on this, of all days, Speaker, I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would say that we are on the right track.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, it took a year for us to get them to use words “wage” and “freeze” in the exact same sentence. We would actually have believed you, we would have given you even a bit of credibility, if you had stood on your feet and voted for Jeff Yurek’s bill that would have frozen wages across the board back in the springtime.

You know, it’s shocking, Speaker. Only the Ontario Liberals would applaud a deficit of $13 billion. Only the Liberals would applaud a deficit that is greater than all the other deficits in Canada combined, times two—dramatically out of touch, Speaker. It’s time for action—10 months of treading water, 10 months of spinning your wheels, 10 months of stopping to get out of this hole. Surely you’ve got to have some new ideas. One single bill this entire session: They’re out of gas.

If you have no ideas, take ours. We’ll balance the books; we’ll grow the economy; we’ll get Ontario moving again.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: As the Leader of the Opposition talks about—he talks about fiction, frankly. Speaker, 325,000 jobs have been created since 2009, at the depths of the recession. That’s 325,000 Ontarians who are employed, who can look after their families and who can have a future here in Ontario. That’s almost half of all jobs created in Canada.

The tax reforms that have taken place in Ontario have resulted in Forbes magazine saying that Ontario is the top destination in the world for investment. We look forward to a day in this House when the Leader of the Opposition actually stands up for Ontario instead of putting it down.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess she got me there. When I do talk about the Liberal budget projections, when I do talk about their plan, I guess we are talking about fiction, because there is no plan. Your plan continues to fail.

You’re off on all of your numbers. You missed your targets by $3.3 billion. That’s not just a little bit of a miss, Speaker; it shows that they have no plan. They make up numbers and they fail to make any kind of progress whatsoever.

Here’s the reality. Spending is up in 14 out of 24 ministries. The Drummond report came in the front door and went out the back door before you could blink. Ongoing scandals at the gas plants, at Ornge, at eHealth—you’re digging a deeper and deeper hole. If you have no plans, you have no legislative agenda, then maybe it’s time you hung up your skates and took our ideas to balance the budget, create jobs and get our province moving again.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Here in government, we need to do what families are doing at home—saving, paying their mortgage faster, watching budgets—and we are tightening our belt. I will say again: Program spending growth was held below 1%, lower than the 2011 budget target. Jobs recovered since the depths of the recession—let’s be clear how we compare to others who are living through these same challenging times as we are in Ontario: The UK, 87% of jobs recovered; the USA, 46% of jobs recovered; here in Ontario, 122% of jobs recovered.

Let’s focus on supporting Ontario families and making the decisions and the choices that put them first.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier: I ask the Acting Premier to look at last month’s numbers alone.

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, they did create jobs. They added 30,000 more jobs to the public sector payroll. The problem is that we lost 55,000 jobs in the private sector. Under this government, we’ve lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs, and they’ve added 300,000 jobs to the public sector payroll.

It doesn’t work. It can’t balance. You can’t have a healthy, sustainable public sector program without a thriving, healthy private sector. That’s what they don’t get. You can’t add government jobs and reduce private sector jobs. That’s a spiral to the bottom.

We have a better plan, Speaker, one that will focus on growing the economy, putting people back to work and, yes, reducing the size and cost of government.

I’ll ask the minister with her numbers: Why in the world did you add on 30,000 government jobs last month when we lost 55,000 in the private sector? How do you reconcile those numbers?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Our plan, which we have set out in the budget and have been talking about here in the House for some time, is to ensure that we protect the public services that Ontarians rely on, that we protect education, that we protect health care and that we ensure that we protect public sector jobs and public services at the same time. It’s a different approach than the federal government, than some US states, Speaker, where they’re firing public servants and where they’re cutting services.

We all have a role to play in Ontario. Today’s public accounts demonstrate that we can hold the line on spending, that we can protect public services and that we can put Ontario families first with a plan that is fair and reasonable and focuses on those services that Ontario families rely on each and every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: You’ve protected, I guess, government jobs. Already, you’ve added 30,000 to payrolls last month alone. When we lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs, you added 300,000 government jobs, and you gave pay and benefit increases that are way beyond what’s happening in the real world.

Let me go back and test the minister, then, on her new-found religion on wage increases. I want to congratulate my colleagues Mr. McNaughton and Mr. Shurman for pouncing on the MPAC scandal, forcing the government to back down. Let me ask you: If you were so against what MPAC was doing, why, in your most recent collective agreement, did you give MPAC workers an 8.4% wage increase? At a time that you’re saying you’re freezing wages, Minister, I ask you, why did the government allow an 8.4% wage increase to MPAC tax collectors and assessors?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The Leader of the Opposition seeks to vilify those who are public servants who work in our schools and our hospitals every day.

We know what the plan of the opposition would be; we’ve seen it before. They fire teachers. They fire nurses. They want to privatize health care, and they want to cancel full-day kindergarten. That would put our recovery at risk, and it would put at risk the services that Ontario families rely on every single day.

Public education and public health care are the areas that families turn to, especially in challenging times, especially as we live through a worldwide recession and we need to come out of the other side of this. We need to ensure that those services are there when families turn to them.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Maybe I can get the minister to move aside from the talking points for a second and respond to this particular question. The minister was condemning MPAC yesterday, but under the same finance minister, they just signed a collective agreement from 2012 to 2015 that will give MPAC workers an 8.4% wage increase. You say you’re going to freeze wages out of one side of your mouth, and you hand out an 8.4% wage increase. They will also now get 100% benefits when it comes to life insurance, from 75%. They enhanced vision care from 75% to 100%.

Not only did you increase wages by 8.4%, you also gave out benefit packages that are way out of line with struggling families at home who don’t get that kind of benefit but are asked to pay higher and higher taxes.

Minister, if you truly do believe in having a wage freeze—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —voting against it, then why in the world would you give an 8.4% wage increase through 2015 to MPAC workers and enhance their benefits?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The Leader of the Opposition certainly knows that all members of this House would agree that the conversations and what we’ve talked about in this House with respect to MPAC are not acceptable. But he also knows that it is AMO and the municipalities that need to look at the decisions that are being made with respect to MPAC.

When the decisions are ours to make on this side of the House, Speaker, we’ve made decisions to find a pathway forward, to make choices, to move forward with public sector wage freezes. We’ve just passed the Putting Students First Act legislation here in this Legislature, and we are asking our partners in the public sector to take a pause when it comes to wage increases. The Premier and the Minister of Finance have been very clear that our request to do so would expand beyond that area that we have responsibility for. It is incumbent upon all of those in the public service to do their part.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question goes to the Acting Premier. The Speaker made it really clear today that the Minister of Energy is in contempt for refusing to disclose details of the cancelled power plants in Mississauga and Oakville.

My question is a very simple one: When will the government table the documents and disclose the details of that private power contract and the details of the estimated cost?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: We respect the Speaker’s ruling and his recommendation. The Speaker suggests further discussions will be helpful, and we agree. We look forward to working, in an ongoing way, between the House leaders to resolve the issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Speaker has made it clear that the minister is obligated to disclose the information, but what’s most concerning is that the Liberals should know better. Over a decade ago, this government came to power on a commitment that they described as follows: “We will make the government’s business your business. We see it as an essential means of ensuring that decisions are made in the public interest. We will require that all future contracts signed by the government be subject to public scrutiny.”

That’s from your 2003 platform. What the heck happened to that commitment?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House respect the fact that you have made a decision on this matter, and I think all members of the House are also aware that when we are talking about these documents, we are talking about a very complex situation.

The leader of the third party likes to quote. Let me quote the Auditor General at public accounts on September 5, when he was talking about these documents. He said, “My sense on the Oakville one”—that’s the Oakville document—“where it’s currently in arbitration, and taking into consideration Ms. Gélinas’s comments about not disclosing any information, is that it could very well be that some of this information could be subject to client-solicitor privilege, or, even if we were to get it, in my opinion, it could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position.”

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For nearly a decade, this government has insisted that private power deals would ensure affordable and reliable power and eliminate the politics from our electricity system. Instead, we’re paying untold millions for decisions made by the Liberals’ election team and we have the most expensive electricity bills in the entire country that the people of this province are paying.

The people of Ontario are paying the bill. Why is the government hiding the information from them?

Hon. John Milloy: In terms of accountability, we have no lessons to learn. We are the government that gave the Auditor General power over the broader public service, including Hydro One and OPG. The Auditor General himself, on September 5, noted in the public accounts committee that the complexity of these documents—the fact that these documents could, in his words, damage the province’s negotiating position; could, in his words, be subject to client-solicitor privilege—an officer of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the fact that your ruling recognized that this is a complex situation. I am optimistic that the House leaders can sit down, as House leaders have in other situations—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The members from Renfrew and Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order—now.

Hon. John Milloy: —and find a way for these documents to be viewed so that it can protect Ontario’s position.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. I do think I need to remind the government House leader, though, that the ruling was that privilege was breached; that the privilege of the member is primary in this House.

The Speaker made it very clear: The minister is obligated to disclose this information. Yet when we’ve asked for it, when we have asked for this information, the government has used every single tactic in the book to hide the facts from the public. How can the minister claim concern for the public interest when he’s blocking transparency?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m a little bit confused here, Mr. Speaker. We’ve had a ruling from the Speaker which has mandated the three House leaders to meet, to discuss a way forward in terms of the documents that have been requested. Is the leader of the third party suggesting that the New Democratic Party will not be part of these discussions?

I’m entering into these discussions with the spirit of optimism that, by the three of us working together, we can find a way to make sure these documents are produced, and produced in such a way that respects some of the concerns which were raised by the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Give me a break is all I can say. This government has played political games with this issue from day one. This information does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people.

This government has blocked the auditor. They’ve refused to disclose via freedom of information, and now they’ve breached a member’s privilege. When will we get the facts?

Hon. John Milloy: We are talking about a situation in which the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature, has said, “Some of this information could be subject to client-solicitor privilege, or even if we were to get it, in my opinion, it could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position.”

What you have directed us to do is for House leaders to sit down. Mr. Speaker, I am quite frankly disappointed the New Democratic Party is not willing to sit down and find a way forward so that these documents can be looked at by the committee so that we can comply with your ruling in a way which does not damage the position of the government of Ontario. Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask her, is she standing here today and saying the New Democratic Party will not co-operate in this process?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know, Speaker, the saddest thing of all in this mess that we’re dealing with today is that 10 years ago this was a government that was elected on a mandate for change. Now they’re employing the same secrecy that they used to rail against. People in this province deserve much, much better than that.

Will the minister disclose today and avoid all of the hassle that’s going to come over the next week or so—actually disclose today the cost of the Liberal Party’s private power deals and the details of the contracts for the Mississauga power plant?

Hon. John Milloy: I would remind members that the Minister of Energy appeared in front of the committee day after day and answered questions about a variety of issues related to his portfolio. The documents were released related to the power plant in Mississauga. Now in terms of Oakville, what we are talking about is a situation in which, as I just quoted several times, the Auditor General of this province himself has recognized that there are sensitivities; there is solicitor-client privilege and commercial sensitivities. You have asked the three House leaders to sit down and come forward with a solution to this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with the New Democratic Party that they are challenging your recommendation and that they will not co-operate in this process, one which, as I say, has been replicated in other Legislatures and in the House of Commons in terms of finding a way forward.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the energy minister. Minister, you’ve been found to have a breach of privilege and in contempt of Parliament. You know what, Minister? You can do the honourable thing today: Tell your aides to print those documents and let us see what’s—what are you hiding? What are you ashamed of?

Minister, will you tell your aides right now to print those documents so we all can see them?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I want to thank you for the ruling, for the consideration of the issues and for the very clear direction on the privileges of committees in the House. I understand the recommendation within the ruling and I understand, further, the government House leader’s indication that he is prepared to pursue the recommendation. I also clearly understand that this matter returns to you.

Within the next week and a bit, I’m hopeful that those meetings will take place, but I very clearly understand that it returns to you on September 24.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m amazed each and every day I sit here and listen to the obstruction on that side of the House. What are you afraid of? What’s in those documents that you’re afraid of? What are you hiding? Does the word “contempt” not bother you?

Will the minister assure this House that the shredders won’t be called in to continue the cover-up that we see in that ministry?

Interjections.

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

The member from Cambridge will withdraw.

Mr. Rob Leone: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I was in the House with all other members and heard the ruling, it sounded clear to me: a clear review of the authorities and a clear direction that we return before you, against the backdrop of the clear review of the authorities. I am mindful of that. I will leave the other discussion to the House leaders. But I do know that on Monday, September 24 we return to the Speaker, who just made the original ruling, and I thank you for it.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Energy, who is in contempt of this Legislature: Minister, people are tired of your self-serving actions. People are upset that the Liberal government spent $190 million to cancel a plant that they approved. How can you, Minister, continue to evade and to show contempt for this Legislature?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, the ruling that you made this morning sets out a clear direction and a path. I respect the ruling. Thank you for the ruling. We’ll comply with the ruling.

The member was there during estimates, and we had a lot of discussion about various issues, including the Mississauga gas plant. He did outline the costs that we outlined, the overall costs, as soon as the resolution of that matter had been reached. In fact, I attended a news conference which he was at, the day after the agreement to relocate that plant was signed.

I return to the ruling that you made. We will return before this House, where it is within your jurisdiction to assess the ruling itself. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Minister, the ruling of the Speaker made it very clear: The information that you are withholding belongs to the people through this Legislature. People are tired of paying public money for the private goals of the Liberal Party. When will you provide this Legislature with the details behind the expenditures that you made?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The day after the relocation of the Mississauga plant had been concluded, I did speak to that issue. I spoke to the relocation. I spoke to the costs. I spoke to the issues and released a number of documents. The ruling of the Speaker is with respect to all documents. I’m aware of the ruling. We’re all aware of the ruling. Thank you for the ruling. We respect the ruling. We’ll see what the House leaders come up with. We know that we’re back here on the 24th with respect to the ruling and with respect to the history and the obligations that that history entails.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of Health. Investing in hospital capital projects is important, not only to ensure that residents have access to health care close to home but to also enhance the region’s economic viability. A new hospital in Vaughan is important to me and my constituents in Richmond Hill, and I will continue to ensure that we move forward with this.

Many areas of the province have faced tough economic times, including southwestern Ontario. As you are well aware, Minister, there’s a strong link between a robust local economy and the quality of health care services. In particular, communities need well-funded hospitals in order to attract the skilled workers who will be confident that they can raise their families close to accessible health care services. What investments has your ministry made to improve health care infrastructure and, through that, the economy in southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Richmond Hill for reminding us of the many ways in which improving the quality of health care fosters stronger communities.

Let’s take as one example Stratford, Ontario, in Perth county. We’ve invested over $58 million in a major capital project: Stratford General Hospital. It’s got a new emergency department, intensive care unit, surgical suites, and space for mental health and maternal-child services, along with the hospital’s new MRI. It means that current and future residents of Stratford-Perth and surrounding communities will benefit from faster access to high-quality services.

But that’s not all. Just this morning, I was very happy to read an

article in the Stratford Beacon Herald that talks about improvements in the coordination of care, not only between hospitals, specialists and family doctors but also hospitals in the area.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Reza Moridi: Thank you, Minister. A healthy rural Ontario is a key driver for our economic recovery, and we thank the front-line health care workers in Perth–Wellington for the great work that they do.

Minister, there are many communities in southwestern Ontario that are growing very rapidly. One that comes to my mind is Waterloo region. Many families are choosing this region to raise their families because of the promise of good jobs, vibrant neighbourhoods and quality health care. Minister, what types of investments are we making in this region so that this community can continue to grow?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There are so many, but let me give you one great example: Cambridge Memorial Hospital, a fantastic example of planning to accommodate for more patients. The emergency department will be able to serve an additional 10,000 visitors. The acute mental health unit will accommodate up to 25 patients. There will be an addition of 33 new medical surgical beds, five intensive care beds, two maternity beds and four additional pediatric beds. That’s why I was so disappointed when the PC members dismissed our budget, because it contained a commitment to continue investments in more than 30 new major capital hospital projects, in addition to the 25 currently under way.

Cambridge is a growing community. We’re proud to make investments to provide better health care for the people of Cambridge.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order, please.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My questions are for the Minister of Energy. Speaker, we’ll try this in the good-cop fashion first. Minister, we’ve heard today that we have the right to know the real costs. We’ve already heard about the $190 million in Mississauga. Those documents that we’re looking for—we want to get to the bottom of the $300 million-plus that is going for the sole-sourced contract to Lambton. We want to know if that sole-sourced contract into the Lambton plant includes additional payments.

Minister, the Oakville plant, at $300 million to $1 billion—this is the information that this House has learned that we need to get to the bottom of. Minister, there are 11 days that the Speaker has given us. Why would we use those 11 days? We already know what the answer is going to be. You’re going to have to turn those documents over. Minister, we respectfully ask you to ask your staff to turn those documents over to us right now and put an end to it.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The Speaker has made a ruling. We’ll comply with the ruling and we thank the Speaker for the ruling.

You’ve mentioned on a couple of occasions about a sole-sourced Lambton plant. Let’s be clear: There was a contract for a plant in Mississauga. A same-sized plant is going to Lambton with the same company. So I’m not sure where you’re coming up with an extra plant.

We’ve released a number of documents, we’ve released costs, and we’ll be complying with the Speaker’s ruling. I know that the next date on that is September 24.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, Speaker, sadly, good cop didn’t work, so we’ll try a little of the bad cop then.

The Speaker has ruled, “A prima facie case has been established.” Minister, the jig is up. You’ve been caught red-handed. You’re a lawyer; you know the next stage is to charge you with contempt.

Speaker, the minister is making both a mockery of this House and of you. You have nothing else to lose now, Minister. Bring us the documents today. Please, bring us those documents now. Put an end to this misery. Put an end to it.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Respecting the Speaker’s ruling, we’ll be complying with the Speaker’s ruling.

Of course, we reached an agreement to relocate the plant to Lambton on the Monday. On the Tuesday, we were before a number of the members of the House and a number of members of the press speaking to the relocation, speaking to the costs, speaking to some of the terms of the contract. We released a number of the documents. Your Speaker’s ruling covers the rest, and I look forward to speaking to address that issue in compliance with the Speaker’s ruling.

But just to be clear, there was a plant that was to go in Mississauga. It’s the same-sized plant that will be going to Lambton, so there is no new plant. It’s the same one that has been moved.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the government House leader. It is clear that during the process at committee that dealt with this issue in regard to the gas plants, your office and your staff directed committee members on the government side how to vote on all of the amendments and also drafted all of the amendments and all of the motions that dealt with this issue, trying to deflect having those papers delivered. Clearly, your office doesn’t want to deal with this in such a way that the papers be given.

Why should we have any confidence in this House that you have any ability to find a solution to this? Shouldn’t this matter best be dealt with by a motion in the House today, forthwith?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I know that the honourable member would never want to leave the impression that the debate and discussion in committee did not draw out the fact that this is an extremely complex matter because we’re dealing with issues of commercial confidence as well as solicitor-client privilege.

I’ve shared with members of this Legislature earlier in question period the words of Jim McCarter, “My sense on the Oakville one … it could very well be that some of this information could be subject to client-solicitor privilege, or even if we were to get it, in my opinion, it could be damaging to the province’s negotiating position.”

Mr. Speaker, the member’s own colleague the NDP Chair of the committee said this on May 16, “I would also advise—and I think the minister, being a lawyer himself, knows full well that he may choose to answer the question in such a way as not to prejudice the province in any way, and I would expect him to do so. That would be my ruling.”

Mr. Speaker, this is a complex matter, and you’ve taken that into account in your ruling today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Members will know I have great respect for the government House leader, and I know that he’s a very competent individual. He worked in the federal House of Commons as an assistant to Jean Chrétien in regard to legislative issues and understands well that the rights of the House trump everything. They trump prima facie—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The rights of the House trump everything. Those papers had to be delivered.

But what I just heard in your response is no change in direction. I hear you saying exactly what your committee members were saying back when estimates was dealing with this issue, and I don’t get a sense that you’re going to try to find any kind of solution other than trying to protect the Liberal Party.

So won’t you agree with me that you haven’t changed your mind and that we should deal with this matter forthwith, today in the House?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: That’s contrary to the Speaker’s ruling.

Hon. John Milloy: I fear—exactly, as my friend the deputy House leader says—that the NDP House leader is getting very close to challenging your ruling.

I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Those people who have examined the submissions that I made will know that your ruling did not favour the arguments that I put forward, yet I respect it. At the same time, I have confidence that I can work with the other two House leaders to resolve this issue, as has been directed by the chair.

Mr. Speaker, I enter this with a spirit of co