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

June 6, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Jun-06 (PDF)

L051 - Thu 6 Jun 2013 / Jeu 6 jun 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 6 June 2013 Jeudi 6 juin 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

TRANSIT FUNDING

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

LONG-TERM CARE

LABOUR DISPUTE

WIND TURBINES

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

AIR-RAIL LINK

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FIRST RESPONDERS

ITALIAN HERITAGE MONTH

CAMBRIDGE STREET

BAPTIST CHURCH

ANNIVERSARY OF ATTACK

ON THE GOLDEN TEMPLE

ORDRE DE LA PLÉIADE

D-DAY ANNIVERSARY

FEDERATION OF BADMINTON CLUBS

BOOTS AND HEARTS

COUNTRY MUSIC FESTIVAL

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

D-DAY ANNIVERSARY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

ENSURING LOCAL VOICES

IN NEW CASINO GAMBLING

DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT

À GARANTIR LA CONSULTATION

DES POPULATIONS LOCALES

AVANT LA CRÉATION

DE NOUVEAUX CASINOS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WASTE DIVERSION

PREMIER’S AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN THE ARTS

WASTE DIVERSION

PREMIER’S AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN THE ARTS

PREMIER’S AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN THE ARTS

WASTE DIVERSION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

GASOLINE PRICES

DOG OWNERSHIP

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

WIND TURBINES

DOG OWNERSHIP

AIR QUALITY

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

SPRINGWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTION OF CHAIR

OF YORK REGION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(ÉLECTION DU PRÉSIDENT

DE LA RÉGION DE YORK)

PROTECTING CHILD

PERFORMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ENFANTS ARTISTES

FAIRNESS AND COMPETITIVENESS IN ONTARIO’S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ ET LA COMPÉTITIVITÉ DANS L’INDUSTRIE ONTARIENNE DE LA CONSTRUCTION

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTION OF CHAIR

OF YORK REGION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(ÉLECTION DU PRÉSIDENT

DE LA RÉGION DE YORK)

PROTECTING CHILD

PERFORMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ENFANTS ARTISTES

FAIRNESS AND COMPETITIVENESS IN ONTARIO’S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ ET LA COMPÉTITIVITÉ DANS L’INDUSTRIE ONTARIENNE DE LA CONSTRUCTION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 5, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 55, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les agences de recouvrement, la Loi de 2002 sur la protection du consommateur et la Loi de 2002 sur le courtage commercial et immobilier et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Eric, for always serving us so well with this wonderful Toronto water. Speaking about water—

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Are you sure it’s Toronto water?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Well, I hope so. We’re down in Toronto.

Speaking about water, Mr. Speaker, I want to share this nice little story with you. Over the course of the weekend, as many of us in this House did, we went out to some of our Legion events for Decoration Day. I’ve had some misfortunes lately when it comes to certain personal incidents that have happened with my vehicle—anyway, I’ll get into that.

I was on my way—I was leaving home after a Sunday morning with my family at home—and I go driving in to Mindemoya for a Legion event. On my way there, the water pump blew on my car. That wasn’t the greatest thing. When I got to the event, I had a nice little chat with the people who were there, and as I was talking to them, I told them how I’ve made a great relationship lately with this fantastic woman. She is so great. She’s been listening to every one of my prayers and listening to a lot of my comments.

As it turned out, this wonderful woman is Mother Nature. Mother Nature has helped me out, indeed, with a couple of problems that I’ve had in Algoma–Manitoulin recently, and one of them is the high water levels in the northern part of my riding. I’ve asked her to lower those water levels in order to let traffic go through, in order for kids to go to school and in order for people to get to work. At the same time, I’ve asked her to indulge me by raising the water levels in the southern part of my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, so that the Chi-Cheemaun can sail.

I have to say, she has been very receptive, so I’m very happy to have this nice Toronto water. But the one thing I didn’t cover with her is the fact that we didn’t deal with the water pump on my car. I’ll have to talk to her a little more closely next time.

Interjection: Mother Nature doesn’t cover Chevs.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Yes, Mother Nature doesn’t cover Chevs.

Anyway, I stand here in my place and speak on behalf of people in Algoma–Manitoulin, and it is my pleasure to add my words to Bill 55. I’m going to try to cover all of it in the very limited time I have this morning.

I want to put a lot of emphasis, in my presentation this morning, in regard to

schedule 2, along with

schedule 1. They are the most predominant ones that really affect people in Algoma–Manitoulin—not to say that

schedule 3 doesn’t; it does as well. However, with the work my constituency staff and my Queen’s Park staff deal with, those are the issues they hear the most throughout the riding and through the calls that we receive from individuals.

I have to say that I’m very fortunate to have some very good staff, as much as everybody else here at Queen’s Park; I mentioned it yesterday. Something that we should all do once in a while is really speak to how we appreciate the work they do for us back home, because they are the faces of ourselves, and they do represent us very well and the work that they do is amazing work.

You know, this bill is good in many ways; however, it lacks in many others. It’s a step in the right direction. However, that step can be much greater, and there’s a lot more that we can do in order to assist with consumer protection. When you’re looking at an individual who is struggling at times, and I have to say, some of these individuals—and I don’t want to paint everybody with the same paintbrush. Some of these salespersons, when they come into our communities, they come in—it’s their first job, and a new job for them.

The problem is how they’ve been trained; it’s how they’ve been instructed; it’s how they’ve been told to target particular individuals, and when they do get to those doors, they have that uncanny ability to pick up on certain signs: one of them, desperation; another one is seclusion. Another one is regarding—a lot of our seniors are being affected this way as well. That’s where I have a lot of problems, in particular, with the lack of some of the efforts that have been put into this bill.

Hopefully, once we get it to committee, we’ll be able to strengthen it that much more so we can bring a lot of, as I would say, the meat and potatoes to this particular bill.

There are so many organizations out there, and I just want to try to focus a little bit, for this couple of minutes, on seniors. Seniors are very much excited about the access that we have to the Internet, and I’ll tell you why: because it gives them the opportunity to communicate in a different way in talking to their kids. But in talking to their kids, it also gives them a different way of accessing information. It is through accessing that information that these individuals are being taken advantage of as well, and it doesn’t speak to this in this bill.

There are many seniors out there that are frail, that are disabled, and there are programs out there that they can apply to in order to get the disability tax credit. It’s a federal tax credit that you can apply for at the end of the year. However, there are organizations out there that actually prey on those seniors, and they prey on them to apply for their particular disability tax credit so they can fill out the forms for them.

Well, if those seniors don’t know that—that this is a very standardized form, that you just basically fill out your address, bring it in to your doctor and get it filled out and if you’re eligible for that disability tax credit, you get it and then you can actually antedate it for the prior 10 years, depending on where you had your disability. You can stand to get a great amount of money in credit.

But there are companies out there that are actually taking advantage of those seniors by getting them to sign on with them and saying, “Listen, we’re going to promise to get you everything that you’re rightfully entitled to. However, it’s going to cost you” A, B and C. If seniors don’t know about those programs, if there are communities that don’t have the senior advocacy individuals to represent them in their communities, they’re being taken advantage of.

There’s also a situation—I’m a statistic of the forest industry and how it has been affected. There are a lot of individuals, personal friends of mine, who were very much taken advantage of by credit collectors and people who had promised them, “Listen, give us this large amount of money or give us two easy payments of $200 or $300, and at the end of your debt, we’ll identify your debt and we’ll be able to reduce it quite significantly.” Well, when it sounds good, and if it is too good to be true, most times it is.

That’s what happened with these individuals: They have now been put into a position where they’re in greater debt, have greater problems. That is totally unfair. These individuals, with all their hearts, are trying to provide for their families, but because of tough economic times, they have been taken advantage of. It is unfortunate that that is what’s happening.

I don’t want to paint the entire industry with the same paintbrush, but those are the facts. That’s what’s happening: These businesses or organizations are targeting particular areas that are struggling. Whether it’s targeting communities that have high senior populations or targeting communities that are a one-industry town where they can come in and make promises of eliminating debt, it is happening, and we need to deal with that. I would like to see much stronger language in here with regard to dealing with that.

Also, I had a personal situation with one of the hydro sellers. They came to the front door. My wife dealt with it. We were successful in getting out of our contract, but others aren’t as fortunate. When you set your mind to getting something done, you do it.

I can’t believe my time’s already gone, Mr. Speaker. You just get so frustrated when you see individuals who are suffering and are being affected by others who are trying to take advantage of a particular situation. It is extremely frustrating for individuals.

Also, something that I touched on yesterday is that those individuals—once you are taken advantage of, once you sign on that dotted line, once you actually commit to these contracts, it’s very difficult for people to get out of it. It’s one thing dealing with the company that you’re trying to get out of, but it’s the embarrassment that you have to face your family or your kids, and you have to tell them that mom or dad—“I got caught up in this.” Then you have the fights: “Why did you do that, Mom?” or “Why did you do that, Dad? You should have known better.”

Well, you didn’t, because these individuals are trained with the equipment. They come to your door, and they have stacks of papers and binders and statistics. They also come in: “Well, there’s been a building code change your municipality is endorsing, and here’s a letter from your community.” It is very difficult for these seniors to say, “Oh, this is a bad idea,” or, “Who do I call?” because by the time they walk to your door, they will not leave until you commit to signing that contract.

Those are the things that are actually happening day to day. We really need to deal with those situations, Mr. Speaker.

I firmly look forward to having the discussions that we’re going to have on this over at committee. I hope that we can develop some type of—particularly toward our seniors—advocacy group and identify these groups within our communities to help them.

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

Hon. Mario Sergio: I’ve been listening to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin and his presentation on this particular piece of legislation. I have to say that I was very pleased to hear the comments, especially on two particular areas, two aspects, of the bill. He has mentioned that he needs to make it even stronger than what the bill represents at the moment, and also he talks very well with respect to seniors, which is a weak spot for me out there.

I have to compliment the Minister of Consumer Services for having the foresight and for bringing this bill quickly to the Legislature. I do hope that this bill can travel quickly to committee, where indeed we’ll be receiving due consultation, and come back to this House as quickly as possible—I hope, stronger. I think our people need all the protection they can get, especially from abuse and schemes that, unfortunately, are out there.

If the bill will come back and go through, some of the major points include that the bill requires plain language and disclosure for consumer rights; prohibits delivery during the first 20 days, which is a cooling-off period; provides stronger consumer remedies when these rules are breached; and requires mandatory recorded verification of key terms of the contract.

They are all good recommendations, and I hope indeed that the bill will be receiving a good amount of consultation from the various individual organizations, agencies and stakeholders, and indeed come back to this House a better bill so we can offer better protection and more protection for our people.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I enjoy listening to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin because he does put things in real terms and real life.

I’d recommend you get a General Motors car. They’re actually very reliable, with great warranty programs. Don’t bother spending any more money on the water pump. The car must be old enough as it as.

I think you also make a very good point on the bill. When I looked at the bill—and I did speak yesterday for a few moments—specifically under the debt settlement, some of it, quite honestly, has to go to committee. If you look at the bill itself, it actually provides that you can go to a payday house, and it gives you a 10-day cooling-off period. Well, you’ve already spent the money, and the reason you’re there is that you have no money, so it’s like trying to get blood from a stone.

I think there are some disclosure requirements there. Plain-language contracts are important for people who are under stress or pressure, so I commend you for giving voice to the people who aren’t very, very able to take care of things like that.

Also, it says in that particular section—there are three sections, but that one there probably gets the most media attention generally, because they are preying, to some extent, on vulnerable people. To see one of these gaming casino places is absolutely criminal in terms of taking advantage of vulnerable people.

I think that the other part, too—it says in the bill that they have up to one year to cancel the contract; up to one year if they haven’t received a copy of the contract. A lot of these people just run in, grab the money and right back to the casino or something. I don’t know.

It’s a feel-good bill. We would be supportive of it going to further hearings, to get to the root cause of some of these issues on these retailers, on home heaters and stuff like that. But I appreciate your comments this morning.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m pleased to join the debate on Bill 55. Welcome, guests, to the gallery; I’ll explain to you, because you just got here, what we’re talking about. This is a government-introduced bill; it’s called Bill 55. It’s the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act. The idea of the bill is to try to strengthen our rights as people who buy things, understanding that a lot of companies out there have a lot of resources to make a lot of fine print that’s hard for most of us, when we’re buying something, to understand that fine print. In that process, people are being ripped off.

So this is a good—the intention of this bill is good. I think we should send it to committee to debate more. I think it’s a very limited bill in scope. I really appreciate the comments of my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin. I know that the member formerly was a constituent worker and that he knows this stuff inside and out. In fact, his office, my office, all of our offices do a lot of this consumer advocacy from our office spaces, but there are only 107 of us across the province, and the fact is that there’s far greater need for consumer advocacy. So one of the things we’ve proposed is actually having a designated consumer advocate, somebody who can stand up and help people.

I know that in my riding—my riding is called Davenport; it’s a Toronto riding—we have a lot of people who have language barriers; a lot of people who are new to the country, people who are Spanish-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, Italian-speaking, Vietnamese-speaking. For those folks, the small print is even that much more difficult, and a consumer advocate that could help people in a language specific to their own language would be very, very helpful. That’s something that I would suggest when we bring this bill forward into committee. Again, a small step; there’s far more that we need to do but I’m glad that we’re actually talking about this here today.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’m glad I was here this morning to listen to the remarks from my colleague the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. About a week ago, I dropped by the Kawartha Dairy depot in Peterborough; it’s on Lansdowne Street. It was very interesting; I looked at one of their shelves and it was full of agricultural products from Manitoulin Island, particularly great jams and marmalade. It was great to see that product and buy it that evening because I wanted to get an ice cream cone at Kawartha Dairy. But I just want to tell the member that great products from his riding are arriving in Peterborough.

I certainly encourage my fellow citizens in Peterborough to acquire those great agricultural products from Manitoulin Island. They’re very good.

I want to get back to Bill 55 here this morning. It’s interesting, of course. Elliot Lake, in the member’s riding, has become a seniors’ community. It was once the hub of uranium mining in Ontario in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and then that came to pass. They reconfigured Elliot Lake to become a retirement community where many people from around Canada, of course, arrive in Elliot Lake and take advantage of what is a very nice place to be.

So in that context of Bill 55, particularly seniors—and I previously talked about seniors, of course. These fast-talking people come to their doors. They’ve got a contract that’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. “Sign on the dotted line; you get this water heater for next to nothing. It costs you nothing over 10, 15 years,” and you know that’s not the case. Of course, on those contracts, they have a 1-800 number; it says 1-800 number, call Timbuktu. You try to reach 1-800 Timbuktu; you never find anybody there, so you can’t cancel this contract.

The member is right. We’ve got to get this bill to committee. Obviously, there will be some amendments to it to make it a stronger bill, particularly for our seniors in Ontario who deserve this kind of protection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Algoma–Manitoulin, you have two minutes for your response.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be nice leaving here this morning, because everybody in this room is in agreement—something that doesn’t happen enough. It’s going to be so nice to bring that back home and say, “We accomplished something today. We’re going to get some work done on this.”

Anyway, I want to thank the minister responsible for seniors. Your comments are greatly appreciated. I know that you’re a great advocate for seniors, and that you’re very knowledgeable, as well, in regard to the situation with seniors and their needs in my particular riding.

Member from Durham: I’m a Chevy man. I love to drive those Chevys. I have my truck and I have my couple of Impalas. Unfortunately, the hose was made outside of this country, and that’s why it broke and affected my water pump.

And you’re absolutely right. Those payday operations—when people go there, it’s out of desperation. It’s not because of a must; it’s a desperation move that they actually have to get those funds in order to provide for their own families. We’ve got to find a way to eliminate that.

The member from Davenport was a nice guy to acknowledge you. It’s always nice to have visitors listening to our debate. We sometimes forget why we’re here, and you’re one of the biggest reasons why we’re here. So welcome to you this morning.

He’s absolutely right: 107 offices is what we have across this province; however, those are the ones who actually utilize our service. Once they come into our office, they don’t care if it’s a federal or provincial office; they need help. And until we advertise or until we find a way to connect with individuals to find out where those services are available, they’re left at home and without assistance.

To the Minister of Rural Affairs: If you’re going to thank somebody, thank Mother Nature for the water levels and the Chi-Cheemaun. That’s why you have the jams. The Chi-Cheemaun is able to float and it will bring the nice jams to your area. It will also bring people from southern Ontario onto Manitoulin Island—it is a magical place—and the entire riding. I’ve met many individuals across the province at Queen’s Park, and I do have God’s country.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to join this debate today on Bill 55 as well. I want to share the complete title, because at the end of the title of this bill is what I’m going to speak to, mostly. The title reads, “An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.” That’s the phrase I want to come back to and revisit.

Before I do, I want to talk about the relevance of what we’re doing here and why our PC caucus is supporting Bill 55 to get it into committee, because it does indeed need further review.

Let’s talk about real estate transactions for a while—improvements, as my colleague said. Absolutely. First things first: With regard to real estate transactions, buying a house may be the biggest purchase an individual will ever make in their life. You put trust in real estate agents, and unfortunately there could be a bad seed that just turns everything upside down. As we’ve come to know in Parliament, as we have come to know in this Ontario government, it only takes one or two bad seeds to turn a governing party upside down, like we saw yesterday with the intent to permanently delete emails. It’s absolutely abysmal.

Coming back to the real estate industry, I have to say that we do need to take a look at how we can strengthen the rules around this market. While we’re doing that, I might even suggest that we take a look at my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings, because he has a bill, and has talked about it for some time, about the need for electronic signatures on real estate transactions. It will cut down the transaction time—the phantom offers that do tend to be part of the problem in the current industry as we know it today—and we can do transactions in real time.

So when Bill 55 gets to committee and we have an opportunity to improve it, I really hope sincerely that political colours do not taint the manner in which we address this, and that my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings will actually have his bill considered in terms of how to improve the real estate industry in terms of facilitating transactions, and actually moving it into the 21st century. But there’s more to talk about.

The next example would be the debt settlement agencies. Unfortunately, we’ve come to realize that it’s not only the Ontario Liberal government that is forcing Ontario taxpayers to live on credit cards, but individuals throughout this province, for whatever reason, are indeed accruing more and more debt. It’s a pretty serious and daunting effort to manage that debt. Just like in the real estate industry, it only takes a couple of bad seeds to turn all of that upside down. So I’m glad to see that Bill 55 potentially will help strengthen consumer protection with regard to debt settlement.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that part and parcel of managing debt comes awareness and comes education. That’s why I’m proud that the PC caucus had the foresight to talk about financial literacy in our PC Paths to Prosperity. You know what? This education system of ours today has just gotten way out of hand. We’ve gotten away from the basics: food literacy, electricity literacy, financial literacy. People in high school and people in grade 7 and grade 8 should be thinking about living within their means. My goodness.

I know this Ontario Liberal government isn’t setting an example, but we could start at a young age and help people realize that they do indeed have to manage their financials very, very carefully. So while we do have to rein in the issues around debt settlement agencies, there is so much more we can do. I feel strongly that the PC caucus has set an example to be followed when we talk about financial literacy, and I hope that will be taken seriously as well.

In this Consumer Protection Act, we talk about the need for consumer protection against those greasy salespeople out there. I found it interesting, because I totally agreed, when the member from Algoma–Manitoulin was talking about the various scenarios that are out there with regard to the type of door-to-door salesmen that come and knock on your door. It made me think of my own personal example of wind turbine salespeople.

That’s where I come back to the title of this Bill 55. This bill, in the title, specifically says it has the opportunity to make consequential amendments to other acts. I would invite this government and the committee that reviews Bill 55 to seriously take a look at how industrial wind turbines have been absolutely mismanaged and thrust upon jurisdictions throughout rural Ontario. It is a travesty how people have been approached and mishandled and pressured into signing contracts that they, quite frankly, don’t understand because they’re so convoluted. It’s just abysmal.

My husband and I were on the receiving end of it. We got the phone calls. We had the salesmen travelling around our concessions in south Bruce. We even were told that our neighbours had signed, and we’d be missing out if we didn’t sign. Well, little did that greasy salesperson know that the farm to the east of us was owned by my brother and sister-in-law, and there was no way they were signing.

I’m just so glad that, on record, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin cited so many different scenarios of door-to-door salespeople who take advantage of consumers, because I can say “ditto” when it comes to how green energy and the development of industrial wind turbines have been thrust upon rural Ontario. It’s totally unacceptable, and it needs to be brought to an end.

The aggressive tactics that are used are just not right. We talk about our vulnerable people. The good member from Durham talked about how greasy salespeople tend to prey on vulnerable people, and that has happened. Across the countryside, in rural Ontario, again—I’m focusing on this because it’s a real-life, recent example of how people can be abused, pressured and intimidated into signing contracts. That’s why we need to really examine how consumers can be protected.

In particular, there are amendments specifically to two items that will give some teeth to this bill, if you will, and really get to the root of the problem of protecting consumer rights. One issue is that it’s very, very difficult to cancel long-term contracts. We have to take a look at that.

Also, within that cooling-off period that is prescribed right now, customers, when they talk to their neighbours or have a sober second thought, find it very, very difficult to cancel the service that they were pressured into signing for. You know, that consumer’s either put on hold or he’s just passed around from department to department until he gives up. There are also scare tactics that sometimes seem to be used.

You know what? These companies have been charged in the past, and we have to get back to holding people accountable for their actions—much like the Privacy and Integrity Commissioner did yesterday. She outed the Ontario Liberal government for purposely deleting emails pertaining to the gas plant scandal. It was not legal to do. So Ontario taxpayers need to be protected as well, just like consumers through Bill 55.

Again, I have to come back and revisit the fact that, when it comes to an example of the worst type of salespeople who go door to door, in rural Ontario, in my riding, it’s the people who try to lock in electricity rates and people who have gone through the communities, ripping them apart, trying to sell contracts for industrial wind turbines. Honestly, the tactics that have been used: autographed hockey player pictures, offers of tickets to sporting events, pressuring people by saying, “You’re the only one who’s not signing.” The examples could go on and on and on.

That’s why the PC caucus is okay to support Bill 55 and to get it into committee, because there are so many ways that this bill could be improved upon. Again, I invite people to go back and take a look at the last part of the title: “and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.” Specifically, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the committee reviewing that, in terms of making consequential amendments to other acts, they need to revisit the Green Energy Act because the realities are that contracts and the manner that they’ve been facilitated have to stop.

I would also suggest to the committee reviewing Bill 55 that when it comes to industrial wind turbine salespeople, this act could also support municipalities that have chosen to be unwilling. For instance, Bill 55 could say, “Industrial wind turbine salespeople, you cannot go in and knock door to door or travel concession to concession in municipalities that have chosen to be unwilling hosts for the industrial wind turbine scenario”—that is being imposed throughout this province at a time when we’re selling electricity and paying other jurisdictions to take the surplus off our hands. I look forward to seeing this improved.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s once again an honour to be able to stand here and talk for the residents of Timiskaming–Cochrane on Bill 55 and make some comments on the member from Huron–Bruce. Basically, this is a bill that’s—I call it stronger protection for consumers. I think we can all agree; I think we all want to see this bill go forward to committee and make some improvements.

I think we’re chasing a running target, because I can remember, when I was first married—it was a long time ago—it was vacuum cleaners, big-time vacuum cleaners. We got the call that we had won a trip to Florida, if we’d just check out this vacuum cleaner. The person came; it was kind of interesting, because we didn’t have any furniture and he was showing us how this vacuum cleaner was going to work. My first question was, “Well, can we sit on it?” I’m making light of it, but this guy was trained and he was incredibly good at his job. Even though we didn’t have any furniture, we almost bought a vacuum cleaner which we didn’t need. And it hasn’t changed yet.

The one improvement I think we could make to this—right now it’s water heaters; it was Direct Energy. Right now in my riding it’s water filtration. So they call up, “Can we test your water and see? It’s town water, but you probably need a water filtration system”—for thousands of dollars. We need to make sure that we can open this up so that it goes more after the problem and not just after the flavour of the day—which might be water heaters—because this is an ongoing problem. We can’t stop people from going door to door, but we can give the people who are behind the doors more rights to defend their decisions.

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: It’s a pleasure to speak on Bill 55.

Stronger protection: We all need stronger protection at the door. Some of the salespeople are just so misleading, you really don’t know if you’re coming or going by the time they’re finished. It’s an easy sale for them; they’re professionals. They know what they’re doing and they know how to do it, and they know how to take advantage of clientele.

The fact that it’s going to protect consumers from high-pressure, door-to-door sales is a major one for me. I see it on an ongoing basis and my very busy staff deals with it on an ongoing basis. We do our very best to help and protect them in the future. This will protect the vulnerable, indebted consumers as well from predatory debt settlement services, and that’s a major concern out there. I, personally, have dealt with them on behalf of residents; it’s an ongoing saga. The fact that in 2012 there were over 3,000 complaints certainly speaks for itself. It’s something that has to be addressed, and I like what I see in the bill.

I can tell you that it’s going to prohibit upfront services fees. It’s going to prohibit misleading sales practices and advertising.

I did have a staff member who worked with that and helped people virtually daily, who ended up going to a contractor for a deck and advanced the contractor $1,500. The contractor never came back. The staffer had to go through a process of going to court. The perpetrator actually was convicted and our staffer did get the money back, but it’s a long process.

I really like Bill 55 and I’m certainly prepared to support it.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I came this morning primarily to listen to the member from Huron–Bruce. I liked her style of not avoiding the real issue of the three parts of the bill—debt settlement and door-to-door sales and real estate—but she wove in a web of related issues which I felt are relevant to the discussion, specifically for her passion on the Green Energy Act. She’s probably the lead voice in trying to bring a voice for those who are opposed to wind turbines. She’s done a marvellous job on that file, and I think weaving it back in to protect the consumers—it makes good sense to raise these issues.

I think her remark with respect to the privacy commissioner, Ms. Cavoukian, on the accountability or the potential that they broke the law—I think Ann Cavoukian said that they did break the law. I think it was criminal, basically. But I think that’s protecting consumers. She was protecting, she was giving voice to the consumers of Ontario as taxpayers. So I commend her for her remarks and her way of intricately weaving a web of distrust, technically.

I find it difficult now to trust the government, and I think many of the consumers—this bill itself. Actually the bill, particularly on the debt settlement, if you look at it, it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do. The legislation must ensure that debt settlement contracts make your chosen settler the recipient of collection calls. This bill does not do that. So if you look at it, it’s been poorly crafted, hastily crafted, and it has to go to committee.

I know the minister’s here this morning. Welcome; have a wonderful day. That’s a beautiful colour you have on this morning. But that’s not what it’s about; none of this is personal. Doing the right thing is what I’m really talking about, and the member from Huron–Bruce, I thought, did a wonderful job.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I always love being in this House when my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane is in here because he lit a little spark in me. He talked about a vacuum incident that he had. Well, let me tell you about an incident that I had, with my wife, where a door knocker came to my door trying to sell us an encyclopedia. We needed this series of encyclopedia because our kids could not make it through school in order to get the education that they need. They would not be able to survive. Hell, they made it sound like it was oxygen. Guess what? We didn’t have any kids. It’s just amazing how they can come to your door and sell you anything that they want.

Anyway, also I just wanted to comment on a wise comment that the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane’s father made to him as a young man, and I think it’s important for us: “If you need it, go to the store and get it. If it comes to your door, you don’t need it.” That’s a wise saying that he was beneficial in receiving from his father and I thought it was important to mention.

What I did want to say in the very limited time that I have: I don’t know if you’ve heard the expression of “bait and switch.” The bait and switch is where you get a call or you get a piece of literature in your mail telling you that there are all types of savings for your cellphone, for your cable, for your hydro, for your water heater, and so on and so forth. That’s the bait. You bite on the bait, you do the call and you do the interaction with them. They either come to your door or you do the interaction over the phone.

Lo and behold, by the time the call is done or the service is delivered and the explanations are done, you’re paying more for what you didn’t need in the first place or you’re getting a lot more headaches for something you didn’t need at all.

Getting this to committee is going to be really good, because we need to really look at the clause-by-clause and we really need to look at eliminating the reduction and the elimination of the benefits that we don’t actually need but the services we essentially need as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Huron–Bruce, you’ve got two minutes for a response.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had more time, because the comments from my colleagues in the House today have just generated so many thoughts that I would like to touch on. I really appreciate everyone’s perspective.

The member from Algoma–Manitoulin: It’s interesting. You made a really good point with the encyclopedias. If you don’t need it, you need protection, instead of being threatened and pressured into buying something, much like the vacuum that we heard about earlier. In particular to that member, thank you for sharing that comment from the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane: “If it comes to your door, you don’t need it.” How rich is that? When you think about all the surplus energy we have and how our industrial wind turbines are going up from community to community—it’s the door-to-door salesperson.

Full circle right there: We’re taking time and taking Ontario taxpayers’ dollars to pay jurisdictions to take surplus energy off our hands, and the salespeople keep coming to our door.

If it comes to your door, you don’t need it. And that’s why I really like the title of Bill 55. I really hope that this committee, when it gets into review, that the Green Energy Act will also, in the spirit of the title of the Consumer Protection Act—that “consequential amendments to other Acts” will seriously take a look at how green energy is thrust upon people from door to door in rural Ontario.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s about door-to-door salespeople, and that’s exactly how the industrial—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Minister, come to order.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: —wind turbine has just spiralled out of control.

It’s interesting. The member from Durham was so right. He finds it hard to trust this government. Who does, this day? Look what they’ve done to us: from scandal to scandal; now to illegal activity by permanently deleting emails.

You know what? The member from Ajax–Pickering: I totally agree with you, member from Ajax-Pickering. It’s about protecting people.

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can I ask the members on the government side to come to order? You’re entitled to an opinion but I think you’re entitled to listen also.

Further debate.

Mr. Michael Prue: I’ll try to get this debate back on to the bill itself. But I do have to admit: I find door-to-door salespeople, no matter what they’re selling, mostly to be reprehensible. Maybe one day in this Legislature, we will ban the practice altogether, because selling door-to-door is, in my view, one of the sleaziest jobs a person could possibly have. Anyway—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: But we don’t make anybody sign on the line, nor do we ask for money.

Mr. Speaker, as a politician for many years, both municipally and provincially, I have had complaints come to my office about door-to-door salespeople. I have had them come particularly in the last little while about water heater salespeople. I do know that they have affected even my own family.

The last time, when this bill was first introduced, and I had an opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes on the bill, I told the story about my parents living in Bancroft. They were retired. They were, at that point, in their late 70s, and a door-to-door water heater salesman came and convinced my father that he was not in compliance with the local code of the town in which they lived, which was right near Bancroft.

My father, I think, listened to him and signed on the line. When he came back into the house, my mother was extremely upset. She, first of all, berated my father, and justifiably so, for having been so gullible to buy this water heater salesman’s malarkey and sign on the line.

She chased the guy down the street, but he ran away. She came back to the house. She called the police because she didn’t know what else to do. The OPP arrived in the little town of Cardiff, went up and down the streets, found the water heater salesperson and made him go back to each and every house that he had a signed contract with and made him ask the people if they really wanted it. By that time—this was a cooling-off period of under an hour—I believe everyone in the town said no. They were elderly people.

The town of Cardiff was a former mining town, much like Elliot Lake. When the mines went out, there was no work, but people found cheap housing and many people retired there. It was in cottage country. It may not have been on a lake, but it was convenient to all the local facilities in Bancroft and around there. That’s the kind of town that these people seek out. It’s the kinds of neighbourhoods that they seek out.

But I want to fast-forward to last week. I was out doing a little bit of gardening on the weekend, and a guy walked up to me. He had a badge, and he had all kinds of paraphernalia on his person. He told me that he was in the neighbourhood because the water heaters in our neighbourhood weren’t very good.

I looked him straight in the eye, and I said, “I’m not interested, sir.” He said, “But you have to be interested, because your water heater’s probably not up to code, and we have an opportunity here to bring your water heater up to code, to do some ventilation that you require,” and all those ridiculous things. He looked me straight in the eye, and he was really quite convincing. Not to me, of course, but I’m sure he would have been convincing to many.

I told him I was not interested and, in fact, I found what he was doing to be reprehensible, that his job and what he was doing was preying on elderly people and those who were not too clear in their heads and could be easily influenced by his lies. I told him that. He took some umbrage at that. He told me he was a legitimate salesperson and that he was selling a legitimate product. I told him, at the end, I said, “No. Please, sir. I’m not interested.

In fact, what I would like to do is completely make sure that you never have an opportunity to sell another thing again.” I would say to anybody who’s watching on this television that you should tell them the same thing: You are not interested, nor should they be allowed to sell.

This bill was a little bit timid on that. This bill says they’re going to increase the cooling-off period to 20 days. But what should really be happening, because there have been so many complaints registered against these salespeople selling water heaters, is that this government should be taking, in my view, stronger action. They should be outlawing them. It should be against the law for them to come there, door to door, selling a product that people don’t need, under false pretenses about ventilation that’s not necessary, about changes to the building code or the municipal standards which are absolutely not true.

I told him I wanted to do him out of a job, and he was very angry. But, you know, these guys have so much chutzpah. I ordered him off my property because he didn’t want to go, and then he asked me if he could use my washroom in the house. I told him no; I think he had to suffer just a little bit until he could find someone else at another house that would even let him near.

Mr. John Vanthof: Someone with an approved toilet.

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes, someone with an approved toilet.

This is the reality of what’s out there. I am looking forward to this bill being passed, not because I think it does enough—I don’t think it does enough, because having a 20-day cooling-off period and some of the other things contained within the bill is a very, very minor step, and what we really need is to get rid of this.

I did hear the former speaker who was up, the member from Huron–Bruce, and I did like the stories of my colleagues from Algoma–Manitoulin and—

Mr. John Vanthof: Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. Michael Prue: —Timiskaming–Cochrane. I can only get Cochrane there.

It’s true. Door-to-door salespeople who are asking for a signature are the worst. I don’t find it all that bad when an encyclopedia salesman comes by. They don’t come by anymore because they don’t even print encyclopedias anymore. Everything’s online.

I don’t mind so much when a kid comes by selling chocolate bars to raise funds for his house. I don’t mind when anybody has a product that you can buy and leave it in your house—

Interjection: It doesn’t change your life.

Mr. Michael Prue: It doesn’t change your life. But I do find it reprehensible when all they’re looking for is a signature that binds you to a contract for something you don’t need, and when there is not an actual product changing hands on the spot. I don’t believe this province should be allowing people like that to prey upon the weak, the elderly and those who are not of a mind to be able to recognize a con when one is in front of them.

A couple of other things here that are in the bill—the debt settlement. I think the ideas here are right in terms of debt settlement and how people have to understand the contract they’re signing. They may not get door-to-door salespeople coming, but they see an ad, they watch television. They see somebody standing up saying, “I used to be hopelessly in debt. Now I’m debt-free.

This wonderful company helped me.” They’re finding the creditors closing in on them because of credit card purchases or bad investments or everything else, and they reach out and they often pay money which is not justifiable in the long term. They find out that their debts do not go down significantly, and in fact they’ve found themselves in another form of debt and a contract they can’t get out of.

It is important that this be regulated and it is important that we also advise people: Don’t buy a pig in a poke. Don’t buy something you don’t need, and don’t buy something just because you saw a flashy ad on television, when the reality is, if you’re in debt, the only way you’re ever going to get out of it is by being disciplined yourself—being disciplined and forthright and honest, and make the necessary phone calls and come to some kind of agreement. Go to a bank, if you can; get a loan from a bank at 4% or 5%. It’s better than being in debt at 27% and 28% from the credit card companies, because those kinds of debts are literally almost impossible to ever pay off.

In terms of multiple offers—just a couple of words on those. I have the greatest of respect for the Toronto Real Estate Board, with whom I deal a lot. They are around this place. I think most real estate agents do a very good job in selling houses. In fact, I’ve bought a couple of houses in my life, and I’ve looked at many others through real estate agents. I find them to be professional people. But there are, as always, a few of them out there who will try to increase monies for the seller and increase the money and the cost for the buyer by coming up with a scheme like multiple offers.

I had a complaint only a couple of weeks ago from a gentleman—not complaining on his own behalf but because his children were caught up in this web of multiple offer after multiple offer on a house that they really liked, and he felt that it was horrible. I told him about this bill, and he was glad that it was coming along.

I would commend the minister for what is contained within the body of the bill. It is a timid bill, but it is a bill nonetheless that will help some people in the long term. Please, all of us, start thinking about doing away with this dishonesty, this reprehensible practice of people coming door to door. Make sure that this is a province where the consumer is king.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m really, really happy to be here this morning to speak again to this bill. I’ve been listening carefully to this debate and the other ones before. I just want to emphasize that this is a bill that is about standing up for consumers, and it’s a well-thought-out bill, Speaker. We’ve consulted with stakeholders in the industry. We’ve looked at other jurisdictions. Where are we leading? Where are we lagging? This is about protecting consumers, the vulnerable consumers; it’s making sure that people know their rights and responsibilities when they sign contracts and have sufficient time to rethink that if need be.

I worry when I hear some of the debate going beyond what’s really in this bill. This bill is about door-to-door sales of water heaters because—guess what, Speaker?—there were 3,200 complaints alone to my ministry last year just on this file. That is why we’re focusing on those kinds of sales.

I hear what other members are saying, and for sure we can look at other door-to-door sales practices, but we have to be careful. There are things called constitutional rights here. I think the member from Beaches–East York identified some very legitimate situations of people coming to the door: children selling things for schools, newspaper carriers collecting fees and so on.

We have to be careful about this. I think when we do consumer protection legislation, we have to be clear what problem we’re trying to solve. So this bill is indeed very much focused on that in terms of door-to-door sales of water heaters; in terms of debt settlement companies and what they’re allowed to do, again, trying to support our most vulnerable consumers; and modernizing real estate transactions and protecting consumers in terms of phantom bids, allowing them just simply to be able to have verification about how many bids did occur on a transaction. This is what it’s all about.

I encourage all the parties to work together and move this bill forward.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m proud to add a little bit to this conversation here, and I do have to say I think it’s great that we’re looking out for the water heater salespeople who are out there. I could say in my riding, we get numerous calls at my constituency office where some senior has been taken advantage of at the door, and now their children have come and found out they’ve signed a contract, and they can’t get out of it. Of course, we go into action and work for our constituent and find a solution one way or the other, but I don’t think we should have that step in that process. I think it’s necessary to help give this cool-off period.

My concerns with this bill would be the enforcement of this cool-off period. I’ve known many organizations from which you want to cancel out of that put you through the hoops with the phone calling in order that you get frustrated, just give up and go on with the contract. I’ll take this moment to pick on Bell, because I’ve had a personal experience with them when I wanted to cancel my TV and Internet and phone because I’d had enough of the service I was getting. It must have been three or four hours before I finally got on the phone with someone who wanted to promise me the world just to keep my contract.

Anyway, I’d like to talk to the minister further about how we’re going to work to see that when someone really wants to cancel this policy, they’re not given the hoops in order to get frustrated and, therefore, come to my office so that I can have my office staff call and stay on the phone for hours trying to get this rectified.

I think protecting the seniors on this matter is a great idea. My people listening at home have talked about vacuum salesmen and encyclopaedias. The younger side of us probably have never seen that at the doors. The new scam today is, last week I had someone at my door wanting me to give money to their charity that I’d never heard of. But they had this form they printed on the Internet, “Please give me cash,” and you’ll get by. So there are lots of scams going on out there. As the member from Algoma–Manitoulin said, “If they come to your door and you don’t need it, just shut the door and walk away.” I think that’s your best advice.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always a pleasure to follow the member from Beaches–East York, my colleague. He always brings issues down to their base, down to the people he represents. I think, especially in a bill like this, it’s very important, because this bill needs to be strengthened, but it can help people, and that’s really important.

The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London brings up a very good point—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Always.

Mr. John Vanthof: Sometimes. The cooling-off period is a good thing, but how do we stop the runaround? How can the government help to make sure that, when someone decides to change their mind, they don’t get the ultimate runaround?

I can give you an example. In a plug for real estate agents, I just sold the farm, and it went very well—very well. But when I tried to change my satellite dish contract to my new house, it took longer than selling my farm. Don’t you hate it? Because I had to call and call and call; it was ridiculous.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Use your staff.

Mr. John Vanthof: I did that personally, actually, because it’s my personal business.

But that’s part of the problem. We have to get through to companies. Hopefully we can legislate that somehow consumers have that period, but they also have the right to expect fair service and reasonable answers. I think that’s really important. One thing—the member from Beaches–East York had a very good definition: This should be bigger than water heaters. Something that you have to sign a long-term contract for shouldn’t be forced on you door-to-door.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Sorry for missing my cue there, Mr. Speaker; it’s been a long session.

I want to thank my friend from Beaches–East York for his normal and usual thoughtful interventions, and the member for Elgin-Middlesex. You’ve heard me say—

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: No, I’ve got that; don’t worry.

As I’ve said, we have private members’ bills this afternoon. I always like this place when it’s at its least partisan. I’m always amazed when we get into things that actually matter to our families—the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane talked about family experiences—when we do these things that Bill 55 does, which is just making people’s lives better. It allows people to live more safely in their homes and not to be exploited.

We so often get up in such ridiculous partisan furies over things, but when we actually get down to sharing our ideas about a piece of legislation like this one—which I think every party here and every member here sees as a practical solution—all of us, with our constituency offices, get that done. It’s always a better place. For many of us who have served as mayors and local councillors, which is many of the people in this House, we sometimes miss the days when we could just be people, have friendships and work on ideas.

One of the things I like—and I’m very proud of our Premier and members opposite, the leaders of the opposition parties—is, I think that we’re doing more collaborative work than I’ve seen in the three or four years that I’ve been in this House. I’ve said that many of the newer members are bringing fresher eyes on this. I think that if we continue to show that kind of respect for the people we represent, put the people’s business ahead of politics and have more debates around the substance of making people’s lives better, not only will this House get more done, I think the esteem in which the people we represent hold us will be much higher, and we will be much happier—all-around good things.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Beaches–East York, you have two minutes for a reply.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you to those who commented: the Minister of Consumer Services, the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane and the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. This is a fairly simple bill. I don’t know what day we’re on, but we must have been going for a while, because we’re down to 10-minute speeches. I have not heard every member speak to this bill, but I would be surprised if anyone has spoken against it.

The minister, in her comments, said that her ministry alone received 3,200 complaints last year about door-to-door salespeople selling water heaters. That’s just one thing. It’s not people selling candy; it’s not people selling any myriad number of services. It’s people, door-to-door, selling water heaters. When the consumers of this province find one group that is behaving so badly, then it behooves anyone to take the necessary action.

I am not sure that the remedy outlined is a remedy that is going to stop some of this reprehensible practice. It will help consumers in the short run, but it will only help them if they realize that they’ve been scammed—if they can get to their local MPP, if they can get on the phone and actually get someone at the other end who will answer it to reply within the 20 days. If they’ve scammed you at the door and then they phone up to re-scam you on the phone, not much has been saved.

These kinds of people should be put out of business. The only ones at this stage who can do it are the consumers. So anybody watching here today, if one of these guys comes to your door—I don’t even care if you need a new water heater—you should shut the door. There are other places to buy that water heater where you’re not going to be robbed.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I’m joining this debate and I’m going to be putting forward perhaps a very different perspective but one that I believe we, as legislators, need to consider.

I too look forward to having this bill advance to committee, where we hopefully will be able to consider all of the facts that are affecting this consumer market. Because of the time constraint that I have, I’m going to be focusing on the water heater issue, which is much more complex than I think we—certainly it’s more complex than the discussion that I’ve heard so far today.

I will say at the outset, my colleague the member for Beaches–East York made some very strong statements this morning, and I’m going to disagree with him, and the reason is—to make the comment that door-to-door sales is—and I’m going to quote the honourable member—“the sleaziest job that one could ever have.”

Mr. Speaker, there are many people in our communities today who are desperate for jobs. To paint everybody who is a door-to-door salesperson as sleazy, I find highly offensive. I watch people who are going door-to-door, and they do so in all weather. I guess perhaps one of the reasons—and I look at the minister. She’s here, and she’s shaking her head.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: There are scammers.

Mr. Frank Klees: They’re all scammers, she said.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: No, I didn’t say “all.” I didn’t say that.

Mr. Frank Klees: Yes, and that is it.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I didn’t say that.

Mr. Frank Klees: And that is my point: not all of them. What we’re doing here is, we are putting everyone into exactly that same bushel. Speaker, there are honourable men and women whose only opportunity for a job is to be a door-to-door salesperson. Rather than painting everyone as sleazy or as scammers, as the minister now is saying, I can tell you what we should be doing—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’d ask the minister to calm down and please keep order.

Would you speak through the Chair?

Mr. Frank Klees: I’m glad to speak to the Chair, but when I hear the minister, of all people, interjecting as she is, I find it offensive. On behalf of the many people in this province who have no other choice but to be working in door-to-door sales—and God bless them that they’re willing to do it; it’s not an easy job. I have done it. I have done it, and it’s not easy. It’s not easy to get up in the morning and it’s not easy to be rejected at the door when what you’re trying to do is bring home an honest living.

Yes, there are those who are not going about their job in a very ethical way, but Speaker, we have those people here as well. There are politicians and there are senators and there are police officers who, on occasion, do the wrong thing; there are doctors and nurses and people in every profession who get off the rails and who aren’t doing things according to the book. But that doesn’t mean, especially as legislators here, that we demean those people and call them sleazy or scammers. Yes, there are those, and that’s why we need legislation and that’s why we need the appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

That’s why there should be consequences for those people who are not doing or conducting business ethically.

What I want to do is point something else out, and it’s very strange that there’s nothing here—and I haven’t heard the minister talk about this at all. Supposedly, the people who are doing things right are the companies that don’t have people selling water heaters door to door. They are the two major companies in the province of Ontario, the utilities, or at least the child of those utilities.

I want to, for the record, read into the record this announcement from the Competition Bureau, dated December 20, 2012. For the record, Speaker: “The Competition Bureau announced today that it is taking action against Direct Energy Marketing Limited and Reliance Comfort Limited Partnership, two companies that rent water heaters to residential customers in Ontario.

“Following an extensive investigation, the bureau determined that Direct Energy and Reliance each engaged in practices that intentionally suppress competition and restrict consumer choice. Specifically, each company implemented water heater return policies and procedures aimed at preventing consumers from switching to competitors. This anti-competitive conduct affects consumers, other rental water heater companies, and businesses that sell water heaters, such as home improvement centres.

“Currently, when Direct Energy or Reliance customers wish to switch to another provider, they must contend with a number of practices and procedures intended to frustrate the return process for their rented water heaters, including,

“—a requirement to call to obtain authorization to return a rented water heater;

“—aggressive retention tactics during these calls;

“—restrictions on when and where water heaters can be returned; and

“—unwarranted fees and charges.”

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau does not investigate issues lightly. This was an extensive investigation, and at the end of the day, orders were issued against two major utility companies. For what? Anti-competitive behaviour: fines of $15 million and $10 million. Why? Because, in their nice little offices, in their high-rise offices, the people—no one would call those people who go to work behind those telephones at their desks sleazy or scammers; no. That’s okay for them to do.

Well, Minister, I’d like to know, then, where is there anything in your bill that deals with that anti-competitive behaviour, that kind of sleazy conduct, that kind of telephone call that then suppresses people, intimidates people and infuses fear?

We do need this to go to committee, Speaker, because it’s a much bigger issue than the simplistic attitude of calling hard-working people sleazy and scammers.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to introduce my long-standing assistant and a long-standing friend of the Ontario PC caucus, Filomena da Silva, who is here in the members’ west gallery today.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Today I’d like to welcome to the Legislature the family of Davenport page Simon LiVolsi. Welcome to Lee Mendelsohn-LiVolsi, Simon’s mother; David and Jenny Mendelsohn, Simon’s grandparents; and Ami and Steve Mendelsohn, Simon’s great-aunt and great-uncle, visiting all the way from South Africa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I don’t think they’re here yet, Speaker, but I want to welcome the grade 7 class from Holy Redeemer school in Pickering. They’re here for a tour of the Legislature, and I was thrilled to meet with them this morning.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure today to introduce the family of page Hannah Lacey, up in the gallery: her father, Tom, and her grandparents John and Diane, who are no strangers here. They’ve been here a number of times. Welcome.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to welcome the parents of my page, Alex Hu. They are Feng Shao and Yimin Hu, in the east members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Today I’d again like to welcome page Eric’s mother, Heather Weaver-Orosz, and his sister, Abigail.

Hon. Jeff Leal: They haven’t arrived yet, but I anticipate that Ross Davies and his mother, Pam Norguard, will be with us today in the members’ east gallery. They won a lunch in Peterborough with their MPP, so they’re looking forward to viewing question period and enjoying lunch. We welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce the father of Vanessa Ortelli, who is the page captain today: Scott Ortelli; also, her grandmothers, Beryl Ortelli and Lorraine Babb. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Soo Wong: The students from Holy Spirit Catholic school have not arrived, but I wanted to welcome them to Queen’s Park. There are two classes from grades 5 and 6.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome my nephew, Leo Shrimpton, here this morning. He’s a student from Ossington/Old Orchard, and he’s job-shadowing me because he wants to end up here one day. Imagine.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome to Queen’s Park Carole Matthews, who is the mom of our page Michael Sambasivam, and a constituent of mine and sister of our Deputy Premier and health minister.

Mr. Norm Miller: I have the grades 7 and 8 class from Otter Lake Christian School, with their teacher, Steve Weber, from Seguin township. I think they’re just starting to arrive in the Legislature, in the east visitors’ gallery. I’d like to welcome them here to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce the entire family of Carlo Padilla, seated in the west gallery, in the front row. I can count two, four, six, seven, eight. They’re all here to enjoy his good work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Allow me, on behalf of the member from Richmond Hill, the Minister of Research and Innovation—for page Jimmy Yan: the parents, Chester Yan and Yanlan Zhou. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you for being here.

We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from the Parliament of the Kingdom of Lesotho, led by the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Honourable Sephiri Enoch Motanyane. The delegation is accompanied by the High Commissioner to Canada, Dr. ‘Mathabo Tsepa. Welcome to the delegation from Lesotho. They’re here to find out how the Parliament works.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was an inside joke for the members.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. The privacy commissioner said yesterday that the destruction of emails by senior officials within the Premier’s office and Ministry of Energy was the most serious case she’d investigated in her 15-year career.

In her conclusion, she notes, “Ignorance is no excuse. Transparency of government activities, reflected in their records, is essential to freedom and liberty.” She also noted that government information has been removed and put on external USB drives. Speaker, it has been stolen from the Legislature.

Premier, the law has been broken, and we’ve requested today that the OPP launch an investigation. Will you agree with us and instruct your Attorney General to launch a police investigation into the deletion of emails by senior Liberal staffers?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is the member opposite’s prerogative to ask whatever he chooses. I have said that I am very grateful that Dr. Cavoukian has written her report. We’re examining her findings.

I agree with her conclusions that this should not have happened. I have committed to making changes to ensure that all staff are following the rules—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham, come to order. Who’s next?

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s not my wont to respond to heckling, but the reality is that the heckling from across the floor—“You know what, this is no big deal”—it is a big deal. It’s a very serious deal, and that is why we have taken action. I agree with the conclusions of the privacy commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, the privacy commissioner relayed shocking details on the activities of Craig McLennan, the former chief of staff at the energy ministry, and David Livingston, the former chief of staff to former Premier McGuinty. Livingston asked the secretary of cabinet in January how to “wipe clean the hard drives in the Premier’s office.”

She said, “During our meeting with Livingston, we learned that his information ... practices were very similar to those of MacLennan.... He also deleted his emails daily.”

There was a systematic Liberal attempt to thwart the democratic and legal rights of members of this Legislature and to make sure that those documents never saw the light of day.

Premier, there are grounds for a police investigation here. Will you join us and have your Attorney General request a formal police investigation into this crime?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Since I have been in this role, there has been a systematic and intentional attempt to provide every piece of information that is available and asked for, and that is what we’ve been doing. We have trained staff. We have put in place a clear directive that all of the rules will be followed and that all of the information will be made available.

I agree with Dr. Cavoukian’s conclusions: This should not have happened. We are going to make changes to make sure that it can’t happen again.

In the interim, we have already taken actions to make sure that everyone is retaining the information that they need to and, beyond that, making sure that information that has been asked for, that is relevant to the discussion at the justice committee, has been provided, to the tune of 130,000 documents.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: You say you’ve put a systematic and intentional system in place, but you are personally responsible for leading and continuing a culture of secrecy that puts Liberal Party interests ahead of those of Ontarians.

You talk about training your staff in retention, but let’s talk about using non-FOIable Gmails. We’ve provided evidence, in this House, that you and your transition team leader have used private Gmail accounts to conduct government business in a deliberate attempt to subvert freedom-of-information laws.

The privacy commissioner says the law has been broken here. She said that “there was a culture of avoiding the creation of written documentation on the gas plants issue,” and you’re still carrying that on by using secret Gmail accounts.

Premier, will you stand here today and join our party in asking for a police investigation into this cover-up?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The OPP are independent, and they will do what they deem best.

The member opposite has those emails. They are not secret, because the member opposite has them. He has access to them; we have provided access to them. At every turn, at every question, we have provided the information that the members opposite have asked for.

That’s why we’ve broadened the mandate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Stop the clock. The member for Simcoe–Grey, stop. The member from Wellington–Halton Hills, the member from Thornhill, the member from Oxford—thank you.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s why we’ve broadened the mandate. We wanted the mandate of the justice committee to be broadened so that all of the questions could be asked, so that people could be brought before the committee and all of that investigation that the committee wanted to do could take place.

We have provided 130,000 documents—30,000 from my office. We have put training in place. We are doing everything in our power to make sure that all the rules are followed and all the information is available, including the information that the member opposite is referring to.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is also to the Premier. Yesterday, we learned that the most senior officials in the Premier’s office copied government emails and documents related to the gas plants scandal on to personal drives and then ordered that that information and those documents and that evidence be destroyed.

I’m going to read

section 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada, breach of trust: “Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.”

Premier, you have no choice other than to call in the OPP to investigate Dalton McGuinty’s former office and your office for this crime. Will you do it?

Interjections.

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

I would like to ask the member from Oxford: How’s your hand? Is it okay?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Yes, it’s fine.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said, the OPP is an independent body and they will do what they deem is in the best interests of the people of Ontario to do.

I’m very pleased that Dr. Cavoukian has issued this report. I agree with her conclusions. I agree that there need to be changes made and I agree that there needs to be action taken, some of which we have already begun. But we will continue to work with the privacy commissioner to make sure that the changes that are necessary are made so that this won’t happen again.

I agree it shouldn’t have happened, which is why, from the day that I’ve been in this office, I have worked to open up this process to make sure that all of the information that was asked for would be available.

The reason that the members opposite are asking these questions—one of the reasons—is that they have the information that we have provided, because that is the right thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I find this troubling. The Premier says, “We are going to do better. We need to do better in the future.” They keep saying that. They said that about eHealth. They said that about Ornge.

Let’s talk about Ornge for a moment. You say that the OPP should do what’s in the best interests of the province—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —it was the Minister of Health who actually called the OPP in to investigate Ornge. Why don’t you speak to your Deputy Premier, Minister? Why don’t you talk about the officials in your government who copied data on to personal drives and then destroyed the evidence? That’s why the OPP needs to be called in right now. That is why

section 341 of the Criminal Code applies here, fraudulent concealment: “Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

Speaker, would they do it in Ornge because it didn’t affect them directly? Why won’t they do it here? This minister, this Premier and the former Premier are guilty of a crime.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Stop the clock.

I am going to make a comment about the last statement. I believe that kind of language is—I’m bothered by it, and I would ask the member to guard her questions very carefully. I will be listening carefully to see that it’s not done again.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just say again that we have done absolutely everything possible to make sure that every piece of information, every question that has been asked, every person who has been asked to come—that all of that has been made available to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, and to the public, because I have said repeatedly that what happened in terms of the relocation of the gas plants should not have happened. There should have been a better process up front.

To the issue of making changes so that none of this would happen again: We have already begun that process. The privacy commissioner acknowledges that we have done training. We have made it clear to staff what the rules are. We will continue to do that. As more questions are asked, we will continue as we began, and that is to provide the information that is asked for by the committee and by the members opposite.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, they have breached the public archives law that they put in place. They have breached

section 122 of the Criminal Code. They have breached

section 341 of the Criminal Code.

They called in the OPP when it was convenient on Ornge. Why won’t they call in the white-collar crime unit of the OPP here today? Is it because the kathleenowynne@gmail.com account is suspect? Is it because they’ve been trading information that they don’t want the public to see so that they can continue to skirt FOI requests?

Mr. Speaker, this is very serious. If the Premier cannot stand in her place today and look at the public in Ontario and tell them that she will do what’s right for them, then we are in trouble as a democracy in this province. They have probably broken the law more than once. The Information and Privacy Commissioner said as much yesterday.

I ask her once again, on behalf of the residents of this province, the people of this province: Will she stand in her place and call in the white-collar crime unit of the OPP?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is a first principle of mine that I will follow the law, I will follow the rules, and I will make sure that everyone who works for me and works with me follows the law and follows the rules, and I take objection at being accused otherwise.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Complete, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And, Mr. Speaker, since I have been in elected office, before I was in this House, when I was a school trustee, I have followed the rules. I have taken advice at every turn.

When I came into this office, I opened up this process around the discussion of the relocation of the gas plants so that all of the questions could be answered. We have rules in place in our office. We have turned over documents. We will continue to answer the questions that are asked of us.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: It was last November when New Democrats raised the fact that documents related to so-called Project Vapour had gone missing from the Premier’s office. When this new Premier was sworn in, did she ask why these emails were missing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I did when I came into this office is I made sure that we knew what the rules were, that we put training in place, that we made it clear to everyone who worked in the Premier’s office and across government and understood about the retention of information and that the rules were followed. That’s what I did when I came into this office.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: In her first week on the job here in the Legislature, I asked the Premier where these missing emails were and what was being done to find them. The Premier could’ve stood in her place and said, “I have serious concerns.” She could have taken action. Instead, she bounced the question to the House leader.

If the Premier was genuinely concerned about Liberal staffers deleting emails and breaking the law, why didn’t she do anything to help find them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that at that point we were very much engaged in what the procedures were going to be, how the committees were going to be structured, exactly what the process was going to be, because we were committed to opening up the process and making sure that all of the questions got answered and that there was a process in place for that kind of openness to take place. I was taking action in our office.

We made sure that all of the rules were followed from the day that I came in, and we have provided information as it has been asked for: 130,000 documents; 30,000 documents from our office. We will continue to behave in that manner.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The fact is, the Premier had a chance to offer some change. She could have said, “This deletion of emails is wrong. This wiping out of records is wrong. This is possibly illegal and I’m not going to stand for it.” She could have asked the tough questions of the staff, of the bureaucrats; instead, she offered more of the same.

If the Premier thought the Liberal government shouldn’t have deleted those emails, why didn’t she come clean at the time and simply say that this is wrong?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think my actions speak very clearly by making it clear that we were going to retain information as required, that all the rules were going to be followed—that’s exactly, I think, in response to the member’s question. That’s what we did. We made it clear to staff. We put training in place. We made it very clear that we were going to be following every rule and making sure that all information that needed to be retained was retained.

I agree with the conclusions of the privacy commissioner. We will continue to work with her to make sure that further changes that are necessary are made so that this cannot happen again.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier, again: Yesterday, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner confirmed what New Democrats had been saying for a long time: that the Liberals were destroying information about the gas plants. It’s clear that we need to do more to get answers that people deserve. Will the Premier agree to a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the House leader will want to speak to the supplementary.

I just want to be clear: As I have said, I agree with the conclusions of the privacy commissioner. I agree that this shouldn’t have happened. I agree that there may be further changes that need to be made.

But just to be, again, crystal clear, we have already begun making changes. We began the day that I came into office. We have put training in place. We’ve made it clear to staff in the Premier’s office and across government that information that is to be retained is retained and that any questions that need to be answered in terms of the relocation of the gas plants—that we provide that relevant information.

That’s what we’ve been doing. That’s how we began. That’s how we will continue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, the justice committee is doing important work, but Liberal members continue to call witnesses who were not involved with the cancellation of the gas plants and can’t tell us how much of the people’s money the Liberal government wasted for its own political gain. Will the Premier do the right thing and call an independent public inquiry?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The justice committee mandate was broadened at the request of the Premier. They can undertake an examination into any aspect of this situation, including the documents. The honourable member mentions Liberal witnesses. Well, most of the Liberal witnesses have been Conservative Party candidates who were out with robocalls and pamphlets, knocking on doors and saying, “Vote for us and the gas plant will be done, done, done.”

To my friend in the New Democratic Party, I cannot help it that Progressive Conservative candidates are being told not to show up at the committee. But we’re going to continue to call them because they are part of a very, very relevant piece of this puzzle.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Nothing says evasion like bouncing a question to the House leader. The Premier has said she wants to be transparent. If the Premier is so committed to openness and transparency, will she call a public inquiry into the gas plant scandal, the waste of public money and the fact that senior Liberals were destroying information that belongs to the public?

Hon. John Milloy: Let me talk about transparency. I mentioned some of the actions of the Premier in broadening the mandate of the committee. If the member wants to talk about the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s report, let me quote from what she said, what was said on the news last night. CFTO: “The commissioner has praise for the new Premier, saying, ‘Kathleen Wynne has been proactive.’”

Let me quote from the IPC report: “Throughout this entire investigation, my office received the full co-operation of all parties involved, including the Premier’s office”—that’s the current Premier—“Cabinet Office, the MGS, current and former staff in the Minister of Energy’s office, and the Archives of Ontario staff. I appreciate the time taken and the information provided by these offices and by individual staff, as part of this investigation.”

The Premier has taken concrete steps to address this issue, and she has asked me, as Minister of Government Services, to continue to see how we can strengthen the act. I will be meeting with the Information and Privacy Commissioner shortly.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Rob Leone: I think the transparency that Ontarians want is an election.

My question is to the Premier. The member from Nipissing and I have drafted a letter asking the OPP to investigate your government’s actions in relation to the deletion of emails surrounding the Oakville and Mississauga power plant scandal.

I’ll lay your options out for you, Premier: You can show some contrition and leadership by talking to us today, or you can speak with the police regarding your government’s illegal tactics.

Your agenda of openness and transparency has been a farce from the start, and the mere fact that you choose those words to describe your government shows how little respect you have for the people of this province. So, Premier, since you won’t acknowledge any wrongdoing on that side of the aisle, will you at least get out of the way when the OPP comes to your office to get to the bottom of this scandal on behalf of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, as I’ve said, the OPP is an independent body. The OPP will do what they choose to do. But if the member opposite is suggesting that—if there were a question asked of me by the OPP, would I respond? I take offence at the suggestion that I would not. I absolutely would. I would absolutely comply with anything that I was asked to do by the police. I think the member opposite actually knows that.

As I say, we have worked very hard to provide the information that he and the other members have asked for. We opened up the process. We will continue as we began, providing the information that is relevant to the questioning of the justice committee. We will continue to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: I take great offence that this government continues to hide the truth from the people of Ontario.

You said—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw, because that is saying something in the back door you can’t say in the front door. So will you please withdraw?

Mr. Rob Leone: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: You sit here in this House talking about instilling accountability and a week later, a report comes out saying how your government deleted accountability from the people of Ontario. Premier, the irony would be laughable if it weren’t so shockingly expensive.

I quote from the report: “Without a written record of how key government decisions are made, the government can avoid disclosure and public scrutiny as to the basis and reasons for its actions.”

You’ve been in that chair for almost four months and have yet to show any shred of accountability. This is the best place to start. Will you right now, Premier, order your staff to get us the USB sticks and make the information public before they disappear quicker than the hard drives they came from?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The member talks about documents. Let’s talk about documents: 130,000 documents have been provided to the committee, 30,000 of them from the Premier’s office.

Let’s talk about the Premier’s commitment to transparency. When she was made Premier, one of her first actions was asking the Auditor General to look into the Oakville situation. After that, she offered the opposition a select committee to look into the gas plant situation, and they said no, because they wanted to have a witch hunt against a former member. But she wasn’t held back by that. She asked me to work with the opposition so that we could broaden the mandate of the committee. She has appeared in front of the committee. She has encouraged staff and ministers to appear in front of the committee. Mr.

Speaker, she has been forthcoming. As I said in the previous question, she’s been forthcoming with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. She has taken every step to make sure rules are being followed and has asked me to look at how we can strengthen those rules.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians want to know why the government wasted over a billion dollars of their money to cancel gas plants. They want to know why the government thought they could get away with destroying key information.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Today—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Carry on.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Today, New Democrats moved that the justice committee keep sitting through the entire summer. Can the Premier explain why the Liberal members voted with the PCs to put their summer vacation plans ahead of getting answers for Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, there’s a certain irony in that question. The fact that the committee has full control of its own agenda is because the Premier of this province offered to have a broadened mandate of the committee; that it would, in parliamentary parlance, sit at the call of the Chair.

The Premier has in no way tried to hamper the committee’s investigations. She has appeared in front of the committee. Under her watch, we have given 130,000 pages of documents to the committee, including 30,000 from the Premier’s office.

The control of the justice committee is in the hands of the members, Mr. Speaker, which I think is a tribute to the transparency of this Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Ontarians deserve answers about the gas plant scandal. New Democrats have called for an independent public inquiry, but the government has dug in its heels. Then we called for the justice committee to keep sitting through the entire summer, to get down to the answers, but this government joined with the PCs and dug in their heels again. They’re more concerned with working on their golf handicap than working to find the truth.

Why did the Liberal members vote against more transparency and against getting Ontarians the answers that they deserve?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure if I’m the only one who finds it amusing that the NDP are now accusing the government of some conspiracy with the PCs to cover up the gas plant situation. I think that’s a little bit too rich for this side of the Legislature.

The fact of the matter is that the justice committee, with a broadened mandate, was set up with the support and encouragement of this Premier. We have provided it with 130,000 documents. Those documents have been forthcoming—as requested, have come forward.

We have seen this Premier, when she took office, write a letter to the Auditor General asking him to look into the Oakville situation. We’re expecting his report later this summer.

This Premier has gone to great lengths to make sure that our government is as transparent as possible. As I say, going forward, she has asked me, as Minister of Government Services, to see ways that we can strengthen the current laws, as outlined in the IPC’s report.

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for the Minister of Finance. A few weeks ago, there was a passionate debate at Toronto city council about converting the proposed Scarborough LRT into a subway. Many of my constituents in Scarborough Southwest have been trying to convert this project into a subway for some time and have supported this change for many years.

I know that you have recently had correspondence with the federal Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, about receiving more funding from the federal government on transit. The province of Ontario has committed $8.4 billion in capital investments, which is covering the cost of the Eglinton, Scarborough, Sheppard and Finch projects. The federal government has a measly $330 million—not billion, but million—allocated for the Sheppard project. I can see why this arrangement needs to be updated.

What are the circumstances around which aspects of the Big Move could be revisited?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I would like to thank the member from Scarborough Southwest for his passionate advocacy on this very important issue. Currently, there is no plan to revisit these projects. They’re founded on a plan with Metrolinx that is based on legal agreements signed in November with the city of Toronto and the TTC, and they’re acting on that plan.

However, it is unfortunate that the federal government has not established a dedicated transit fund. If the federal government was at the table with their complete share of the funds needed to support transit expansion, then aspects of the Big Move could be revisited. This issue is simply too important for us to take a wait-and-see approach to federal funding when we must act now to address the congestion crisis in the GTHA. Federal infrastructure funding should be flexible so provinces and other partners can maintain a path to fiscal balance and support our economy and community through strategic infrastructure investments.

The governments must be aligned with the federal investment strategy so that these priorities and strategic investments can be had. As you know, I’ve invited the federal government—

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

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you, Minister, for providing that update. I agree that it’s truly unfortunate that the federal government has not come to the table yet with a national strategy on transit. Other developed countries provide much greater federal funding for transit projects, and Canada is lagging behind its counterparts significantly.

Our government’s record on public transit investment is truly something to be proud of. Our budget in 2013 outlines several key investments in public transit that we hope will be passed with the support of all parties in the House. We have stepped up to build transit across the province, and we are already seeing results.

The minister mentioned investments across the GTHA and beyond in public transit. Could the minister update us on the other projects that are part of the 2013 budget plan?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to be very clear about a few things here. One, we have a memorandum of understanding with the city of Toronto, which they voted for. They voted down subways in Scarborough, and then they changed their mind. Then we went back, and the Premier, when she was Minister of Transportation—with skill that I think could solve the Middle East crisis—renegotiated and brought that back, and we have a deal. We’ve had a deal not once, but twice.

The door was always open to the federal government to come in. They did it. The city council could come to the federal and provincial governments and say, “We would like another MOU because we would like to add projects, and for the first time, we’d like to write a big cheque.”

The federal government could come to us and say, “We would like to join because you’re paying 90% of the costs. We don’t think that’s fair. We think we’re being kind of cheap at 5%. We’ll come up with maybe 25%, and then anything is possible.”

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, this just keeps getting worse and worse every day. I’m sick of watching all the Premier’s men unravel here in the Legislature as this scandal continues to reach further and further into the Liberal organization. Now we’ve even got the NDP, who are guilty as well of aiding and abetting this criminal activity by continuing to support this government. They’re guilty of being an accessory after the fact.

You claim to be innocent. You’ve used your private Gmail account to discuss the gas plants because you know it wouldn’t be subject to freedom of information. We’ve had your transition chief, Monique Smith, on record insulting the ruling by our Speaker. We’ve had two senior Liberal chiefs of staff break the law to destroy documents.

Show some respect for the office that you hold. Show some respect for the people of Ontario. Will you call in the OPP today?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. While the clock is stopped, I am going to recognize that this is a heated debate, but I am a little concerned about the direction of the verbiage that’s being used to make accusations against members. I would prefer the questions to be directed away from that as much as possible.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I have said a few times in the House, the OPP is an independent entity, and they will do what they deem in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

I have said that since I came into this office, I have worked to make sure that all the information that was asked for was provided. The fact is that the member opposite is talking about an email that he has. It’s an email that he has read. It’s an email that he has in his hands. Clearly, it’s not something that I was trying to keep secret, because he has it in his hands. That is completely consistent with what we have done since I came into this role. We’ve opened up the process. We’ve provided the information that was asked for. We will continue to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner ruled this week that that Liberal government was guilty of breaking the law. It’s as simple as that. Who is the leader of that Liberal government? It’s the Premier of the province.

I’m not interested in more talking points, and neither are the people of Ontario. They want to see some real action. I’m interested in the Premier—that’s you—finally showing some respect for the office that you hold.

The chief of staff to your predecessor broke the law. The former chief of staff to the Minister of Energy broke the law. Senior members of your team have said in emails that they don’t really see any problem with that. They’ve actually stood up and said that they don’t see any problem with breaking the law.

This is about a fundamental breach of trust that you and the senior members of your party and your government have committed against the people of Ontario. Only the OPP’s white-collar crime unit can get to the bottom of this scandal. Will you, like Richard Nixon, have to be escorted out of here to make that happen?

Let’s get to the bottom of this. Bring in the OPP—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m very interested in the honourable member’s discussion of the use of personal Gmail accounts. They’ll want to hear this. I’d like to read an email into the record. It says, “A great opportunity has come up. You’ve been asked to do Focus Ontario this week. Taping is tomorrow at 2 p.m., and they want to give you the whole show. You’ll be on with John Tory and Keith Leslie. The time works for your schedule, so we’re going to book it in, and you’ve got some time before that to do a bit of prep.” It’s signed by Lynette Harris, executive assistant to the Leader of the Opposition.

The most interesting thing: It’s sent to the Leader of the Opposition at his Gmail account.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order, please. This is the time in which you don’t know whether or not I’m going to take another step if it gets quiet and you decide you’re going to interject.

New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Speaker, in London and Middlesex county, 68%, or 15 out of 22, long-term-care homes have not had an annual resident quality inspection. The minister’s response has been extremely concerning, implying that complaints or critical incident investigations can take the place of thorough and preventive inspections.

Will the minister acknowledge that the 15 homes in Middlesex county investigated for complaints and critical incidents should still get a full inspection so that further tragedies can be prevented?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what I can tell you is that I completely agree that when people are in long-term-care homes they and their loved ones ought to have confidence in the quality of care that is being delivered in those long-term-care homes.

We are significantly strengthening the inspection protocol. Since 2010, our inspections are much more thorough and they are resident-focused.

Is there more to do? Yes, I believe there is more to do, and I am exploring what those options might be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, some long-term-care homes in London have more than two dozen investigations following a complaint or critical incident. The frequency of these complaint investigations might point to an underlying problem, but still, the minister has not taken the time to do a full inspection.

Seniors in long-term care and their families want problems resolved before they turn to tragedy. Will the minister tell these families when full inspections of all long-term-care homes will be completed?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I think it is important to note that every home does receive an inspection every year. In fact, last year the ministry undertook 2,347 inspections. That’s an average of 3.7 inspections per home.

I think it’s also important to talk about the real improvements in quality that are happening in our long-term-care homes since the introduction and implementation of our new long-term-care act.

I’ll just speak about one home, Leisureworld Tullamore: a 50% reduction in critical incidents because of the work that’s been done through Behavioural Supports Ontario. The behaviours are decreasing because staff are better trained to know how to deal with people who have significant behavioural challenges.

Improving the quality of care is the highest priority in our long-term-care homes. Inspections are part of that. As I said before, we are looking at how to even further strengthen those long-term-care inspections.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Speaker, my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville has a large number of high-rises and so the ongoing elevator strike is of issue, and I’ve been getting quite a few emails and calls from concerned constituents. Here’s an example of a concern a constituent emailed to me: “There are three elevators in the building of 30 floors and only one elevator is operational. There’s a message saying the technicians are on strike. I, as a homemaker, am asking for your assistance in solving this very severe issue.”

Can the Minister of Labour give us an update on the negotiations that are taking place?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member for a very important question. I do sympathize with the concern that her constituent has raised. I have received, obviously, similar emails from my constituency. I’m sure other members have as well.

This is definitely an issue that impacts all Ontarians. I want to assure the House that the Ministry of Labour is quite engaged. In fact, a Ministry of Labour mediator has met with both parties on 10 different occasions, and is available to assist the parties at the bargaining table whenever requested.

We urge both parties to come back to the table and resume negotiations. I’m very confident that by working together, the parties will be able to reach a settlement, and we know settlements reached at the negotiating tables are the best ones and the sustainable ones.

I also understand, Speaker, that repairs can continue by qualified TSSA-certified personnel, which various buildings in our constituencies can avail themselves of.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you to the minister for his update on how the negotiations are going, as well as for clarifying that while the strike is on, elevators can continue to be repaired.

I’d just like some clarification on behalf of my constituents as to how they would know whether an elevator repair person is a certified, licensed repair person while the strike is going on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: First, I want to inform all members of the House that it is the responsibility of building management and the owners to work with service providers to repair the elevators. In the interest of protecting public safety, the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, the TSSA, requires that only certified and qualified technicians work to repair the elevators.

Currently, there are managers, supervisors and other certified personnel who have the required certifications to work on elevators. So repairs are being done; however, not as quickly as many would like, of course.

With regard to emergency situations, buildings have their own plans to respond to situations with emergency responders. It’s important to note that the TSSA has zero tolerance for situations where uncertified, unqualified personnel are found to be working on elevators. I’m monitoring this very closely, and the TSSA and myself will act on public safety risks—

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

WIND TURBINES

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question today is for the Premier. Premier, I’m going to quote from your throne speech this past February:

“Your government intends to work with municipalities on other issues, too....

“So that local populations are involved from the beginning if there is going to be a gas plant or a casino or a wind plant or a quarry....”

Premier, I’m now going to quote you and quote 104.9 The Beach, from Goderich, this past Saturday: “During a visit to Sarnia Friday, Premier Wynne,” when asked about the May 30 announcement, “told reporters that municipalities who have made such declarations” of unwilling host communities “are likely out of luck.”

Premier, your attitude toward rural Ontario is criminal but, sadly, that’s become the norm of your government, I’m afraid. Going back to unwilling host communities who have declared in writing that they’re unwilling, Premier, I have to ask you: Do you or do you not support these municipalities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Of course, it’s always best for parties to work co-operatively with municipalities. I have a tremendous example of one right here, and this is from the member from Nipissing, when he was mayor. Perhaps we should take his lead and municipalities might take his lead:

“Taking advantage of locally available green power resources is a good fit with the long-range development strategy we have for the community. I am particularly pleased with the relationship we have struck with West Wind Development, Inc. for the first half of the project. I am confident that the company’s reputation as a responsible wind power developer can put North Bay ‘on the map’ as a showcase for the sensitive and responsible development of this great renewable energy resource.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Minister, you and I both know that’s nothing but a load of spin.

Back to the Premier: Municipalities know your support is fair-weather. Proponents that I have met with, municipalities, and all of us in the PC caucus are wondering why last week’s announcement was made before your MPP working group had actually even gotten together and presented the recommendations as reported in August.

Premier, it’s an insult to rural Ontario. Municipalities thought that they could expect better from you. You told them they could. But you instead think you can fool them with this announcement, and actually they know better. They’re very savvy now. They know it means nothing. Who did your working group consult with? Because I can tell you, no one in my riding heard from anybody. Because of that, Premier, will you invite opposition like myself and other members impacted by industrial wind turbines to join your working group so we can do the right thing?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that the decibel level doesn’t necessarily create any more substance to the reality of the situation. Communities spoke—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. I’m going to ask that all members allow the answer to be put.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If the member from Leeds–Grenville is looking for a warning, he’s got one. You are warned.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, communities spoke, mayors spoke, and we listened. We listened; we consulted with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in a very significant way. We listened to stakeholders.

With these large renewable projects, the Ontario Power Authority is creating a new bidding process where priority approval is given to projects that have prior municipal approval, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for contracts to be awarded without an arrangement with a municipality.

In addition to that, we’re creating funds for small and medium-sized municipalities so that they can create municipal energy plans, and we’re creating more taxation availability for municipalities that have wind turbines. It’s very significant and—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, on Tuesday, 400 retirees of National Auto Rad in Windsor learned that they will lose their health and life insurance benefits. The reason is that the employer is filing for bankruptcy and has cleverly manipulated things so that all liquidated assets will be going to another company, a sister company—get this—owned by the same family that owns National Auto Rad.

Why is this government doing nothing when 400 loyal Windsor retirees are being stripped of their hard-earned health benefits by an unscrupulous employer?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for bringing this issue to my attention. Obviously, it seems like it’s a matter between a union and its employer, and I obviously encourage the union and the employer to work together to be able to come to some sort of a settlement.

We always encourage parties to negotiate these types of things around the negotiating table; that’s where the best results are created, so I encourage the company and the union to work together and be able to work in agreement. If they need the assistance of the Ministry of Labour’s mediators, we will provide those services to facilitate an agreement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Minister, this isn’t a one-off. This is just one of many stories of employers exploiting loopholes in federal and provincial law to deny workers wages and benefits that they are rightfully owed. In January, Vertis Communications in Fort Erie—and I know you’re familiar with this—announced that it was shutting down, filing for bankruptcy in the States and leaving 100 employees with no jobs and no severance.

The callous treatment of workers such as those at Vertis and National Auto Rad is wrong and simply has to stop. When will this government finally take action to ensure that loyal workers like those in Windsor and Niagara get the wages and benefits that are rightfully theirs?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The issues that the member speaks of are federal issues. In fact, I have written to the federal Minister of Labour to encourage her to ensure that they enhance their worker protection and employment protection program, the Wage Earner Protection Program. This is an issue that the federal government has to deal with to ensure that, in the matter of Vertis—which the member from Niagara Falls so aptly advocated for—and in this particular issue, the federal government extend wage earner protection to those who are beyond just a bankruptcy situation.

I look forward to working with the member on this. I’ve written to the Minister of Labour federally, and I will continue to urge her to provide the protection that Ontario workers so much deserve.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. This is an important time of year for high school students across the province. Many have already been accepted at post-secondary institutions for the coming fall term. Also, many students already in college or university have travelled home for the summer to be with their family and their friends.

Ontario has world-class institutions across this province, and some students, like the ones in my