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

May 29, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 29 May 2003 Jeudi 29 mai 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S

WARRANTY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA GARANTIE DES FABRICANTS

DE VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

INQUIRY INTO

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS

IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE

SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES

RELATIVES AUX PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL

INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS

DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S

WARRANTY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA GARANTIE DES FABRICANTS

DE VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

INQUIRY INTO

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS

IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE

SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES

RELATIVES AUX PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL

INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS

DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

SUPERBUILD

GAY PRIDE WEEK

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

WORLD CATHOLIC EDUCATION DAY

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

CHILDREN'S GOLF PROGRAM

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

ELIMINATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 ABOLISSANT

LA RETRAITE OBLIGATOIRE

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (IMPROVEMENTS FOR SENIORS

AND THE DISABLED), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

(AMÉLIORATIONS À L'INTENTION

DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

OU AYANT UNE INCAPACITÉ)

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SECURITIES ACT REVIEW

MANDATORY RETIREMENT /

RETRAITE OBLIGATOIRE

SECURITIES ACT REVIEW

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

FRANK DREA

ORAL QUESTIONS

SARS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

DISEASE REPORTING

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

SEX OFFENDERS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

CHILD CARE

FINANCIAL SERVICES

COMMISSION OF ONTARIO

WEST NILE VIRUS

INSURANCE RATES

SMALL BUSINESS

GO TRANSIT

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

MEDICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

COMMUNITY CARE

ALUMINUM SMELTER

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

COMMUNITY CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

TUITION FEES

WATER EXTRACTION

RIVER ACCESS

ABORTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BACK TO SCHOOL

(TORONTO CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY)

AND EDUCATION AND PROVINCIAL

SCHOOLS NEGOTIATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 / /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT LE RETOUR

À L'ÉCOLE (SECTEUR ÉLÉMENTAIRE DU

CONSEIL CATHOLIQUE DE TORONTO)

ET MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'ÉDUCATION ET LA

LOI SUR

LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS

LES ÉCOLES PROVINCIALES

Thursday 29 May 2003 Jeudi 29 mai 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S

WARRANTY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA GARANTIE DES FABRICANTS

DE VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

Mr Sampson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act respecting warranties offered by manufacturers of motor vehicles / Projet de loi 40, Loi concernant les garanties offertes par les fabricants de

véhicules automobiles.

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

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): This bill before us will represent, if passed by this House and carried to third reading, the first lemon

law in all the provinces of Canada. I believe it's a major step forward for consumers, not only in this province but, if other provinces choose to pick up on this lead, perhaps across the

country.

I want to start off by saying two things. The first is that by bringing this bill forward and debating it today, and hopefully moving it through the Legislature

to a conclusion, it's not the intent to imply that, as it relates to vehicles or any consumer good in this country or province, we are not producing in this country and North America good quality

vehicles. I believe we are. I believe the auto manufacturers take their time and effort to try to produce a good vehicle, and auto workers work hard to try to do that as the vehicles come off the

line.

But the reality is that every once in a while, something does come off the line that just doesn't quite do it -- a defect either in design or manufacture, or

both. It ends up in the hands of consumers. Frankly, when it ends up in the hands of consumers, it's an extremely frustrating situation that is not being dealt with by the current law; and while

the manufacturers themselves have their own arbitration program that I'll speak to in a few moments, it's really not being dealt with completely by that particular plan.

I've done a lot research on this issue -- an issue, by the way, prompted by a discussion I had with a constituent at one time in my office. So I say to the

constituents watching: these conversations you have with your local members do help, and they do, perhaps, every once in a while end up on the floor of the Legislature.

This bill before us is actually modelled after a number of pieces of legislation in the US -- California and Wisconsin. When I did my research I came across a

court decision around a Wisconsin lemon law. The decision was rendered in 1996 around a vehicle that was purchased in 1990. That vehicle had a number of transmission defects that on seven occasions

couldn't be dealt with by the dealer.

There's a

section of the decision that I'd like to read, because I think it says a lot about the frustration that people deal with when they have vehicles that

can't be handled by the warranties. Whether it's the dealer's frustration with the manufacturer, or the manufacturer is not able to communicate to the dealer, whatever happens it ends up,

unfortunately, in the lap of the poor consumer who has paid a tremendous amount of money.

The judge says, "We realize that car manufacturers do not deliberately set out to manufacture a lemon," and I think he's right. "Quite the opposite," he says.

"In fact, it's in their own best interests not to do so." He goes on to say that it is in their own best interests to make sure a lemon doesn't slip through. In fact, they have many procedures on

the line that work to make sure that lemons don't slip through. He says, "It's one of the facts of modern-day life that it does happen every once in a while, and it's a cost to the unlucky consumer

who purchases that lemon as far as the cost of the car is concerned. They have things like interrupted use of the service, delays in using the vehicle, even cancelled schedules, the time and

trouble as well as the anxiety and stress that accompany those changes and the apprehensions that result every time the consumer gets back into the automobile wondering what's next.

I have a lot of that, not personally but through correspondence I have received since I tabled this bill in the last session. I am actually surprised at the

extent to which people have found out about this bill, e-mailed me, called me, written me, communicated with me in some way about the problems they've had with their vehicles. This is just a small

sample of it.

I won't mention any names but I'll try to do some experiences here: things like somebody with a Subaru that didn't get fixed the third time the transmission

started to be defective and the only recourse was to sell the car, as the warranty had expired and nothing had been done.

Here's another one: "Seven trips to the dealership who simply told me, `We cannot repair the vehicle after the warranty has expired.'"

Here's another one: this particular fellow is a lawyer who acted on behalf of somebody who actually did get a settlement. It was another vehicle, a Volvo, that

was a lemon. She was awarded $20,580 in the damages, but the cost to get that far was $60,000.

My research indicated that there needs to be another vehicle to allow consumers to be able to get another avenue of recourse against the manufacturers of the

vehicles.

I should say that dealers are working very hard on behalf of consumers to try to solve the problem, because they want to see that consumer come back and buy

another car from them. Each consumer who comes in the door and buys a car is another consumer for the next purchase, and they do their best to try to deal with the vehicle and the vehicle's

problems.

Vehicle manufacturers themselves have set up something called the Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan. That was set up, I think, in 1994 and it allows

purchasers of vehicles to petition this group to have their problem with the manufacturer arbitrated. I think this is a good initiative. It's not well advertised, and I've spoken to the people at

CAMVAP, who acknowledged that perhaps their plan is not as aggressively communicated and marketed as it should be. I think they're taking some steps to do that. They have a Web site, www.CAMVAP.ca,

for those who are viewing today.

around your vehicle, you can't subsequently sue; or if you sue the company and the manufacturer feels that you didn't get recourse, you are not entitled to use CAMVAP. So it's a bit of "this way or

the highway," if you will.

This particular bill I have before the House will allow consumers that additional option to be able to find some resolution to their matter as it relates to an

automobile they've purchased from a manufacturer here in Ontario. It simply says this: if a major defect has been identified within the warranty period that was there when the purchaser purchased

the vehicle, and after three times the manufacturer can't fix that vehicle, the consumer has the option to pick: "Get me a new car, replace the car or give me my money back." It's very simply

that.

The difference between that and perhaps the CAMVAP approach or any other action to tort or to go to court through other laws is that it's the consumer who gets

to pick the resolution of the matter. It's an additional tool in their basket of tools to help them deal with the frustration, concern and costs they've absorbed as a result of purchasing a vehicle

-- a tremendous amount of money is now being spent in after-tax personal income on these acquisitions -- to give them a tool to be able to go back to the manufacturers themselves or to the dealer

who may represent them, and say, "Look, I spent a lot of money on this. It's not working out. It's a safety defect. It's serious. It has been recurring. You solve my problem." The two choices for

solving the problem really are in the hands of the consumer.

I think that for many consumers viewing, and certainly those who have written to me, if you peel back all these concerns and problems they've had, their issue is

that they feel as though they're not in the driver's seat, if you will, as it relates to the resolution of their matter. This bill would put them in the driver's seat. It would give them that extra

legislative tool to be able to say, "I spent a lot of money on your vehicle, Mr Manufacturer. Now help me out."

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate and to say I will be supporting this bill, although I must say that my

experiences with the automobiles I've happened to purchase have been pretty good. I drove my last automobile 330,000 kilometres with relatively little problem -- a fine North American car, I might

add -- and that has been my experience with virtually every car I've had. I have a 1967 car that still runs very well. So I have not had the personal need for this sort of legislation.

I think if there's one area where we've seen tremendous improvement in the quality of the product, it has been in our auto sector over the last 20 years. I want

to make that point to the member who is proposing this, to the public and to our auto industry. As I say, my experience has been exceptionally good. Frankly, this province is blessed. We have an

enormous auto sector here, and one of the reasons for that is the quality of the workmanship we have.

I hope this bill doesn't imply that somehow or other the auto sector has special needs -- because this deals just with auto. Frankly, there are some other

sectors, such as the electronics sector and whatnot, that perhaps would benefit even more from a piece of legislation like this than the auto sector.

Having said all that, I do appreciate that the member has indicated he has a file of people who have had substantial problems with, I gather, their warranties.

This piece of legislation is designed to fix that.

I have read this legislation. It was just two weeks ago that here in the Legislature we dealt with another private member's bill, designed to fix the problem of

scoopers at the airport, where the business of our licensed limousine drivers -- after paying insurance and getting the licence to pick up passengers at the airport -- was being undermined by

people operating illegally in picking up people out there. So we rushed that piece of legislation through here. We took it to a committee within a week, and we dealt with the legislation, but when

we got to committee, the legislation changed dramatically. I guess the government said, "Listen, this private member's bill isn't workable," and we fundamentally changed the bill. That particular

bill doesn't come into effect for six months after it's proclaimed. We were told here in the Legislature two weeks ago, "We have an emergency. Our limousine drivers are going bankrupt. They are

facing a crisis," and all three parties agreed to deal with the bill. We took it to committee and dealt with it in a matter of hours, only to find it's going to be at least Christmas before that

legislation comes into effect.

The reason I raise that is, as I look at this piece of legislation, I realize it is the first lemon legislation in Canada, but I have some questions about how

practical it is. I would hope that the member has at least had the input of the ministry staff to make absolutely certain that if we are going to take this forward, it is workable. The way I read

the legislation -- and the member, when he sums up at the end may be helpful here -- if you take your vehicle in three times and they don't fix it, then the company must replace the vehicle. I had

hoped that our warranty legislation was sufficiently good that you had the right, with any warranty in this province, to enforce it.

If what the member is saying is our legislation on enforcing warranties is unworkable and therefore we need a completely separate piece of legislation to deal

with it -- essentially, when you buy a warranty, it is supposed to be a legally binding contract, but what the member's bill is suggesting is that you can't enforce the warranty. If that is the

case, then we've got a more fundamental problem, because all of us in this province have warranties on all sorts of things: any appliance, any electronic device, dare I say even the purchase of a

new home. If what we're saying is that warranties in this province are legally unenforceable, but we're only dealing with automotive, then we're making a mistake.

I'll be supporting this piece of legislation with, I must say, some skepticism about its workability, having just two weeks ago dealt with another piece of

private member's legislation -- dare I say a few days before an election call -- designed to solve an urgent problem only to find that the member who proposed that piece of legislation moved an

amendment that made it not come into force until at least Christmas. I look forward to the member's explanation of why warranties in Ontario are unenforceable. In any event, I support the intent of

the bill and look forward to discussion around it at committee.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate today to support my colleague Rob Sampson with his private member's

bill. I know he has brought forward similar bills in the past. The bill of course is the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Warranty Act.

I certainly believe that Mr Sampson has found a bill consumers will support, and it's a bill that's necessary. An automobile is a huge purchase for the average

person, one of their two biggest purchases. A house would probably be the biggest purchase they make, and an automobile is about the second-largest purchase that the average Ontarian makes. I have

two brothers who are in the car business, actually. My brother Larry is the Ford dealer, Cavalcade Ford, in Bracebridge, and my other brother, Ross, is the Chrysler dealer, Muskoka Chrysler, in

Bracebridge. I make sure I buy at least one Ford and one Chrysler. I have to admit that with my many years of buying Fords and Chryslers, I have never had a serious warranty problem. Of course in

this current job I put about 55,000 kilometres a year on my Chrysler Sebring, driving around the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and I haven't had a serious problem.

This new law, essentially a lemon law, protects consumers, because if you do have a major problem, a problem over $1,000, or a safety problem and you take it

back to the dealer for that same problem for three times -- they try to fix the same major problem or safety problem three times -- then the dealer has to offer you a new car or give you your money

back. I think this makes sense. It actually often assists the dealers as well, because if they have a problem where the manufacturer won't stand behind it and deal with the problem, that gives them

a tool to be able to assist the customer and get them a new vehicle and deal with that major problem.

This is going to be a good thing for the average consumer. I'd like to refer to some of the information about why lemon laws work around the world. For example,

"While BBB Autoline does not operate in Canada, a number of Canadian BBB offices participate in the Canadian motor vehicle arbitration plan," which is CAMVAP, which is in many respects similar to

the BBB Autoline program in the United States. "In 1998, CAMVAP processed almost 500 cases, of which over 300 were decided in arbitration. Despite the BBB's presence in every US state, every state

still has a lemon law, with many dating back two decades." So obviously the States is a bit ahead of us in this area. "Hence, the fact that CAMVAP exists shouldn't be used against the Sampson bill

since it would coexist easily with the voluntary CAMVAP" set-up, the arbitration process we have here at the current time.

I would like to support Mr Sampson in this private member's bill. I think it will bring needed protection for consumers in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr Speaker, thank you. I was expecting somebody else to get up.

A couple of things: I want to say up front that as a member I support generally where you're trying to go with this particular legislation, Mr Sampson. I agree

that it would give consumers -- I wouldn't say a tool; it would give consumers the kind of power they need to get manufacturers and dealers to honour their warranties. I believe that if a

manufacturer or a dealer knows that if they don't fix a serious defect in a car on three occasions the remedy is that they've got to give the person another car, I think there would be a fair

amount of haste and attention paid to the complaint the consumer may have, to try to get the problem fixed.

I would imagine dealers and manufacturers will see this as a bit of a heavy-handed approach. I'm sure if I talk to my good friends, like Urgel Gravel, Rick

Chenier and others, and Mr Maciolli and Bob Stewart and all the dealers up in the Timmins-Kapuskasing area, they probably would say to me, "This is a little bit heavy-handed."

I think we should at least allow this bill to go to committee. If it passes third reading -- I think the jury is still out on that, but I'm prepared to give it

passage at second reading under the condition that we can get this bill into committee. I don't think we have to have extensive hearings. I don't think we need to get hearings that last any more

than a couple of days, but it's important that before we actually take a vote at third reading, I want to hear some of the consumer groups and the manufacturing and dealer groups come before us to

talk about what this means.

I think there are a couple of pitfalls in what you're proposing. The concept is a good one, but there are a couple of pitfalls. What do you do if you have a

consumer who tends to be more stringent on what they deem to be a problem? I'm trying to put that as tactfully as I can. For example, I was talking to one dealer in my riding -- actually, I don't

want to use the dealer's name; it wouldn't be fair. I happened to walk in there one day for something and there was a particular customer giving this guy a hard time. This dealer had done pretty

well everything he could to fix the problem. I didn't say anything; I just took a look at the car as I was going out, and the scratch that was supposed to be there didn't exist. It was just

something that somebody kept on saying, "It's there. I can see it." What do you do in those kinds of cases where there is just no satisfying the consumer? The dealer truly has done everything he or

she can do and there's actually not a problem, but you've got a problem perceived by the consumer that hasn't been addressed and all of a sudden the person says, "Well, time to trade in my car.

Give me a new one." We need to think about how we enshrine that into law.

There has to be protection for the consumer, to make sure the problem is fixed, but the law can't be just biased toward the consumer, because some dealers could

get hurt by that. I, like you, agree there are a lot of good dealers out there, and often I find the problem isn't so much the dealer, it's the manufacturer. What the manufacturer says is,

"Warranty work is paid at a lesser rate than your shop would get for doing work that's outside the warranty," and it's a bit of a problem for the dealer. Sometimes warranty work is not as lucrative

as the regular service work they do within their service departments and sometimes the dealer ends up having to eat work being done on a car that has nothing to do with them. It wasn't them who

designed the car, it wasn't them who built it, it wasn't them who created the defect. The manufacturer sometimes doesn't take the amount of responsibility that I think they should to fairly

compensate the dealer for spending the time with the consumer who has the problem. So we need to deal with that.

I'm a little bit cautious in my support. I don't want to see this as something that's going to be really harmful to dealers, because I think most dealers out

there are doing the work. I just say, again, it's not a bad concept to say that.

Some of the issues I think we're going to have to deal with at committee -- Mr Sampson has suggested there be a $1,000 number. If you have a serious defect or

something that's a safety concern and it costs at least $1,000, if the dealer didn't deal with the problem on three occasions, you would be able to demand a new car. Is that a sufficient threshold?

For example, with a new vehicle today, you can have a problem, let's say, with your power window system and it can cost more that 1,000 bucks to get this thing fixed, because of the components you

have to put into the car. Nowadays, a lot of the components are much more expensive. In the way the cars are designed, it takes much more labour to take the old component out and put the new

component in. Is $1,000 a fair reflection of how this legislation would kick in?

The bigger question becomes, what kind of defects do you allow people to exchange cars on? For example, I wouldn't have a problem in saying, "I bought a brand

new car and the transmission never worked right and they never fixed it." That's a major component, and there's an argument to be made that if the transmission hasn't been fixed on the third

occasion, you would be given a new car. More than likely, that transmission is going to break after it's out of warranty and you could be faced with paying thousands of dollars to fix what is a

very serious defect in the car. But what do you do on the $1,000 number if it's something that is not as critical; for example, something to do with the air conditioning system? The air

conditioning system could be more than 1,000 bucks to fix, and a person is going to get a brand new car versus a six-month-old car or a year-old car, depending on the warranty, because the air

conditioner doesn't work? Those kinds of issues are a little bit sticky to work with.

But I come to this debate as all other members do. The member came here in good conscience as an honourable member to bring forward an issue for debate. That's

what we're doing here this morning. I'm just saying, I'm prepared to give you second reading to get it into committee, but I want you to know now, depending on what we do in committee, I probably

wouldn't support this bill as is at third reading. In fact, I won't, because I think it is problematic to go to third reading the that it is.

I just used those as examples. It makes sense if you've got a major drivetrain problem, a major engine problem, a transmission problem, an electronics problem,

as far as wiring harnesses and stuff like that -- yeah, it makes some sense then to say, "OK, the dealer has not been able to resolve the problem; the manufacturer has been unable to respond to the

dealer's request to get the problem fixed." I think in those cases you allow the trade of the vehicle to happen, which brings up another issue that I want to bring up in a minute. But on some of

the smaller stuff that could be more than $1,000, I think it's a bit unfair to the dealers and the manufacturers to be caught in the position of having to exchange a car whose air conditioning

system doesn't work. You know, it's cheaper to just replace the whole air conditioning system than it is a car overall, or the power lock system or something that is not as critical for the overall

maintenance over the longer term.

The other issue that we need to think about when we go to committee is, once the car is exchanged -- let's say there is a major defect and the car is exchanged.

That car is then going to go off for sale somewhere else. I take it we contemplate that that car will then be viewed as a second-hand car, and I can't believe that we would extend this legislation

to the second-hand car.

I see you nodding no. I'm glad to see that, because then you knew where I was going. This thing would be just like flying an airplane, when you end up in a

spiral dive and can't pull it out. Eventually this thing would crash to the ground and there's not much you could do about it. So I'm glad to see that's not the case.

But I do think there are a couple of things that we need to think about regarding the second vehicle. It probably would be a good idea, Mr Sampson, if we were to

put an amendment to the legislation at committee that says, "If a car is returned under the provisions of this legislation, the car that's been brought in for exchange be at least flagged as a car

that had warranty defect problems to whoever the new owner is." Even on a second-hand car, as you well know, a lot of people will go in and buy one- and two-year-old cars and say, "I don't care if

I have a car that's brand new and smells as if it just came from the manufacturer. I can save $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 by buying a one-year-old car that has 12,000 or 15,000 miles on it from a

rental agency. Some people, as you know in your own riding, exchange their cars every year or two.

All I think we need to do is make a friendly amendment to your legislation -- and that's why it needs to go to committee -- saying that once the car is exchanged

and then fixed or whatever by the dealer and put back up for resale value, not only that dealer but any registered salesperson in the car industry who sells it has to indicate that that car was

brought in under exchange by way of this legislation, because otherwise an unsuspecting consumer could end up buying the very problem for which this legislation was enacted. So I think it would be

only fair that we do that.

The reason I say we have to be very specific in the legislation vis-à-vis that particular provision is that it applies to all dealers, because what will end

up happening is, if a car is brought for exchange -- let's say Mr Bradley comes in and buys a brand new Cadillac, as he does every six months. I had a ride in Alvin Curling's Caddy the other day,

and I thought to myself, "Boy, maybe I should become a Liberal. Wow. Imagine that. A Caddy."

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): You own an airplane.

Mr Bisson: You know, this poor member from Timmins-James Bay drives an old 1995 Ford Ranger -- I've got to redo the paint on it; I've got a 1971

Chevy 4x4 with my plow, not even diesel; and I see Liberal members running around with beautiful Cadillacs. I thought, "God, I should have been a Liberal. Geez, it would've been so much

easier."

Just joking.

Mr Bryant: You have a pension.

Mr Bisson: I wish I had a pension. That's another story. But I digress, having some fun.

Members, be serious. All of us have cars of some type or other. But that was kind of fun to think about.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Gilles has a million-dollar pension.

Mr Bisson: My pension was a million dollars?

Mr Bryant: Yes. You heard it.

Mr Agostino: With money like that you could buy yourself a new plane.

Mr Bisson: Another plane? I could have two? A twin?

Mr Agostino: Yeah, you could have two planes.

Mr Bisson: Oh, wow. That would be cool. Anyway, I was just making the point --

Mr Bryant: Then you're a Tory.

Mr Bisson: But I'd be a Tory if I had a twin -- exactly.

To go back to Mr Bradley, I just make the point, as I was saying, that we need an amendment. Boy, did I ever digress that time. Let's focus on this

legislation. We need an amendment that basically says, "Let's protect the unsuspecting second buyer so the second buyer doesn't get caught with the warranty problems of the person who traded in the

car. If he or she decides to buy the car, the person does so knowing full well there were warranty problems with this car, and that's the reason it is being resold."

I'm saying that we have to make sure the legislation is drafted so that no matter where that car goes back for sale in Ontario, it has to be tagged. As we well

know, Mr Bradley comes in and buys a brand new car and has his car traded on the third occurrence. The car dealership in St Catharines then says, "I'm going to trade that car to a dealer in

Brampton or Timmins," and somebody up there buys the car. So it may not be the dealer himself or herself who made the exchange who will be the seller of the second-hand car. We have to make that

amendment so that where any dealer within the province of Ontario or car salesperson basically goes for resale on the car, that the particular provision can happen.

Like I say, it's not a bad idea. I'm sure -- I was talking to Mr Sampson -- Phil Edmonston, from Montreal, probably likes this kind of legislation, along with

some other people. I would see it as a good tool that people could use in order to make sure that warranty work is done. Provided that we make those particular amendments, I think that would be

pretty good legislation, and I'd be prepared to support it.

Again, I want to say that as is, I will not support this legislation at third reading. I only want to allow it to go to committee so that we can make friendly

amendments. Once we deal with the amendment on the second owner and deal with what is a threshold for trade-in, and we hear from both consumers and dealers, then we'll take a look at third

reading.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Mississauga south.

Mr Sampson: I asked my colleagues to give me a little bit more time so I could respond in full, as opposed to the two minutes on the back end

that we would normally get, to the issues that have been raised by some of my colleagues.

I'm open to reasonable amendments to this bill, as I think any other member bringing forward a private member's bill in this House would be. In fact, last

session I had a bill that dealt with regulating the auto repair business. Those are the people you take your vehicles to when you unfortunately get involved in an accident and need to get them

fixed. The bill fundamentally proposed a regulatory framework with the assistance of colleagues, frankly, from all sides of the House, from all three parties actually. We were able to better that

bill and bring it back to this House for third reading, which it eventually did get before the end of December last year. So I'm prepared to accept suggestions for amendments from anybody in this

House, anybody viewing today or anybody who happens to pick up the coverage of this issue in this debate today.

There was one discussion about how this fits with CAMVAP, which is the Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan, a plan set up by not all, but almost all, if

you will, of the auto manufacturers selling vehicles in Ontario. I think the only car company that's not a member of CAMVAP is BMW. All the other ones are members. I think that this particular bill

could work in tandem with CAMVAP to provide consumers all the options available, whether that be an arbitration plan, the courts or both, or whatever, to be able to deal with their defects.

I go back to the decision that was rendered in a case in in Wisconsin. The judge, I think, made a rather simple conclusion when he rendered his decision. He

said that lemon laws, rather, "seek to provide an incentive to that manufacturer to promptly return those unfortunate consumers back to where they thought they were when they first purchased" their

vehicle." This gets to a point that Mr Bisson raised.

Interjection.

Mr Sampson: Yes. I don't think we need a lemon law to deal with three bad repairs to an ashtray in a car. The bill actually says, "The

deficiency mentioned in paragraph 1 constitutes a substantial impairment to the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle or would cost more than $1,000 dollars to rectify."

I'm not quite sure that I agree with the member who said, "Look, if the air conditioning has broken three times, that's not a serious repair." I think it is. I

don't think anybody buys a vehicle with air conditioning in it these days and expects that after three times it should still be broken. Having said that, I don't think the manufacturers should be

required to give you a new car if they've not been able to fix a design defect in the ashtray of the car. Somewhere there needs to be a process, and I would agree with the member, that helps to

determine whether or not the defect is indeed a safety one, whether indeed the provisions of a lemon law should apply.

That's where I think there could be some very interesting co-operative relationships between CAMVAP and this particular legislation. A panel that arbitrated,

for instance, on whether or not the defect should then apply to the law would be helpful. Although, frankly, all of that would still be in the hands of the judges and lawyers who help take things

like this lemon law and a customer's complaint through the courts to get a decision rendered.

I don't think I've said this enough, so I'll repeat it a couple of times because it is important: I believe we produce good-quality cars in this province. In

fact, I drive a North American car that has been around for some time. It's not quite of the capacity of the member from Niagara's sporty vehicle, but it does get me back and forth every once in a

while. I'm not even sure I could keep up with you on a highway; I think I can only get to 100 kilometres per hour on mine. I'm not too sure if you could do more on yours or not, I say to the member

from Niagara.

We do produce good vehicles in this country and this province, and I think this law will actually help consumers, dealers and manufacturers deal with the very

difficult situation that arises when you have put down a lot of money and walk out of that dealership with a brand new car. You get behind the wheel, you turn the key, you drive away -- the smell

of a new car is there for months, if not sometimes years -- you're excited about it. You get home and three days later something starts to go wrong. I don't think it's unreasonable for a consumer

to expect that for the money that you put down you should get something that meets your expectations.

There are, I would argue along with Mr Bisson, groups of consumers who have higher levels of expectations than others as it relates to the quality of the

vehicle they expect the day they pull off the lot. That probably exists. Perhaps an arbitration system would help determine whether or not we had an overexcited consumer or a justified consumer,

but there needs to be some process that helps people deal with the frustration, the cost, the inconvenience of having to deal with a vehicle that was brand new the day they took it off the lot and

shortly thereafter started to show defects that popped up either because of design flaws or some manufacturing flaw or a combination of both. There really isn't one now, other than the CAMVAP

system, which is a program set up by the manufacturers themselves.

This particular bill does give that extra footing, extra tool, extra ability to the consumer to go and try to get some recourse for the significant amount of

money they've spent on the vehicle purchase.

I will say to the members opposite that I am looking forward to some further input from consumer groups, dealer groups and the manufacturers; I've met with the

manufacturers as well. I'm looking forward to hearing from CAMVAP, whom I've met with as well on this matter. They contacted me after I tabled my bill last session and were concerned with its

impact. I indicated to them that they shouldn't be, that this was not intended to take away their ability to market their program.

I think consumers who are watching today, those who are following this through the extensive media, who are now following this subject, will want to know that

there is currently a plan that they can use. It's called CAMVAP, the Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan. It's accessible if you have the World Wide Web at your fingertips; you can get it at

CAMVAP.ca. If you have a problem with a vehicle now, dial up that Web site and see if this arbitration plan can help you. The bill we're debating today, unfortunately, can't help you right now.

With the indulgence of the House, perhaps, over a period of time, it might be there to help you. But to those who have vehicle problems, may I suggest that they get in touch with CAMVAP to see if

that plan can help.

I think the arbitration system is good. In a number of cases, to clog up the court systems with small tort claims around this particular bill probably wouldn't

be helpful if an arbitration system could provide a fair solution at a reasonable cost. That's why I say I think a lemon bill and an arbitration plan can work together, and they do, in fact, in

many jurisdictions south of the border, including California, which is where this particular bill got a lot of its design components from.

Viewers who are watching today and those who are following this debate will know that this government has committed in its throne speech to take a very serious

look at a lemon bill that applies to more than just vehicles. Why should it be that you take home your fridge or your expensive stereo or your brand new TV, pull it out of the box, find it doesn't

work and then be subjected to, "Send it back to manufacturer X," and six months later you might get it repaired? Why is that fair?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): What we need is a lemon law for cable television -- those thieves.

Mr Sampson: The member opposite is suggesting there should be a lemon law for members of his party. I'm not sure what he meant by that.

Consumers spend a lot of money on consumer products, and I think they expect these things to work when they get them home. It's not unusual to say that, and I

don't think it's unusual to expect that. It's certainly what I expect if I ever take something home: a TV, a fridge or a new car. I expect that I've put good money down on something and I want to

see it work. I think consumers are entitled to have legislative backing, an additional tool, a little bit of support to go to manufacturers and say, "Look, I bought this in good faith and I need

you deal with me in good faith and make sure that whatever I end up owning is exactly what I wanted to buy at the time."

I encourage members opposite to work with me. I'm happy to hear that some of them have said that already in the debate. I'm prepared to have a full and open

discussion in committee about amendments to this bill. I look forward to working with them to make it a reality in the province of Ontario and this country.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I intend to support this bill, although I do have some of the concerns that some of my colleagues have

mentioned. That's why I think sending bills of this kind to committee for amendments is very helpful. Unfortunately, when we get government bills and we go to committee, overwhelmingly the

opposition amendments that are placed are rejected. The whip of the committee on the government side has been given marching orders from the Premier's office on what shall and what shall not pass

as amendments. With a private member's bill, we hope that would be different, so I look forward to that.

I thought at first when we mentioned automobiles that the member was going to bring forward a bill on automobile insurance, because those of us who have

constituency offices -- and that's everyone in this Legislature -- know that people have been calling our constituency offices about huge increases in premium rates for car insurance, and indeed

for other kinds of insurance. It may be that this member or another member at some time in the future will bring forward a bill that deals with those situations.

For instance, we have senior citizens particularly, and others, who have houses that have old oil tanks. They have to have an inspection and sometimes a tank

removed. There's a tremendous cost to that. If they don't do it, they don't get insured. We have charitable organizations out there now that have to cancel events almost, or pay a lot more money to

have an event, because either they can't get insurance or the insurance rate is extremely high.

There are a number of those kinds of issues that are important in the field of consumer relations. We have the price of gasoline. No one has figured out yet

what the price-of-gasoline rationale is on the part of the big oil companies. One thing I do know is when I looked at the end of last year, their profits were at an all-time high. The Republicans

in the United States said, "You know, the real problem is the gas tax. It's all the tax." Yes, there is tax on gasoline, but it wasn't the tax that was going up; it was the oil companies using an

excuse -- any excuse they could find -- to jack the price of gasoline way up. They're starting to make their way down now. We're supposed to be pleased now when we see it at 61 cents or 62 cents.

We're supposed to cheer. A few years back we would have said that was gouging. That's another consumer issue that could be brought forward.

The price of utilities is very high. Natural gas prices are up for consumers, and they call our constituency offices about those and the rationale for them.

The cost of hydroelectric power is a bizarre situation we're in at the present time. There are home renovation schemes and scams that people are confronted with, I would say -- driveway paving and

those kinds of things.

We do need protection for consumers. This bill does offer some protection, and I think it is deserving of further consideration and perhaps amendment and

overall support.

We have to look at warranties and what is hidden in warranties, what is really covered in warranties. I hope the member's bill, when it's proclaimed, is

proclaimed only a few weeks down the line. His colleague Raminder Gill had a bill he brought before the House which was an emergency bill because of a situation confronting limousine drivers around

the airport and other taxis in the province. Now we find out that bill is not to be proclaimed and put into effect for another six months. So it got him to what looked like the election and now we

find out that bill is not moving forward. So I hope this member tries to persuade his colleagues to move his bill forward after it goes to committee.

I've always purchased North American cars. There was a slogan they had for a number of years called, "Buy the car your neighbour helped to build." Living in St

Catharines, we have a major General Motors operation and other operations -- the Hayes company; Dana Corp, it's now called; we have TRW in St Catharines -- all dealing with auto parts. It's an

important industry. Our industry has done very well because we have a high-quality product that we produce. Those who supply General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and others also produce a good product.

There are many small plants out there that are working very hard to improve quality. So we have seen over the years an improvement in the quality of vehicles out there.

New car dealerships, I think, are trying hard in many cases to satisfy their customers with good service. This bill speaks to situations that are exceptions,

however. I think that's quite all right to speak to those exceptions.

As I say, I've been pleased with any vehicle that I've bought. I have used Chevrolets over the years. My first car was a Chevrolet. It was a good vehicle.

Other North American companies make good vehicles, but there are problems that do arise. The threshold of $1,000 may prove to be a problem. The member for Timmins-James Bay raised a couple of

reasonable issues to deal with.

What about the resale of that vehicle? Let's say the company takes it back. If the company takes it back, does it get sold to somebody else and is the same

defect there? I think it's important, as my colleague for Timmins-James Bay said, to make sure every dealer in Ontario is in the position of giving information that, "This is in fact a second-hand

car, a used vehicle, and here's what the defect was," before selling it as a brand new vehicle or a relatively new vehicle without any defects. So that I think has to --

Mr Bisson: Jim, they'll call it a demonstrator.

Mr Bradley: Yes. He mentions they would call it a demonstrator, for instance.

I think we recognize that the kind of complaints this bill is to deal with are not frivolous complaints. We do not want to see a dealership stuck with what we

would call frivolous complaints, because they try to address many of the problems that might be out there. Consumer protection is always important, and I mentioned many areas where we need consumer

protection. I think there are a couple minutes left for the New Democrats. I'll leave it to my colleague the member for Niagara Centre to deal with the cable television industry, because he always

likes to deal with that particular industry. I won't move into that; I'll leave that for him this morning.

Let us look at a number of these issues. As I say, the one that's looming out there, as far as I can see, is insurance: automobile insurance, house insurance.

Business people are telling me now -- I've talked to a person in the tent business. That person said, "I'm in the tent business. I gave quotes to people down the line for weddings and other

occasions, and then I was told by my insurance company that I have a huge hike in my premiums. As a result, I'm probably going to lose on the rental of the tents to several of these

organizations."

There are many consumer issues out there to deal with. This is one of them. I intend in principle to support this legislation on second reading. I think

there's a need for more scrutiny. Some of the right wingers in the government may see this and may put the kibosh on it. I hope not, but I did see one of the right wingers come into the House at

this time, and he's been very successful recently in changing government policy.

Mr Kormos: As has been indicated, New Democrats support this bill in principle. We're eager to see it go to committee. Indeed, July and August

might be ideal months for the committee to travel across the province and listen to public input into this bill. I'm more than eager to join the author of this bill throughout July and August,

travelling around this province, listening to consumers.

I was hoping that this, as a lemon law bill, was directed at the huge rip-offs that are imposed every day by cable companies in this province.

Folks listen, please. Cancel your cable now. You get a crappy signal; you get outages; you're paying outrageous prices; you're being scammed on the packages of

programming. I've had rabbit ears down where I live for the last few years. I haven't paid a cent, and quite frankly I've got a better-quality picture than I ever did with cable. Cable is a

rip-off.

I've just signed up with a satellite dish. At least you've got two, maybe in some areas three, choices. I'm getting a cheaper, lower-cost package -- cheaper

than cable.

Mr Bradley: Is it legal?

Mr Kormos: It's perfectly legal -- a far better quality signal and more control over the programming. I don't have to take the junk

programming that the cable loads you up with. How many home shopping channels do you need? Cancel cable. Go rabbit ears, go antenna -- zero cost. If you want to pay money, go satellite -- less

expensive than cable, better quality signal, more control over packaging.

You know, I don't have a problem with this legislation, but then again, I don't have a problem, because I buy my cars from a unionized dealership down in

Welland, David Chev-Olds. CAW members do the repair work. I trust them. They have proven themselves reliable and trustworthy. The goal for every consumer should be to go out there and buy North

American. Don't buy European stuff or Japanese stuff; buy North American. Go to a good dealer.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga Centre has two minutes.

Mr Sampson: Before I get too much along, I want to welcome the boys and girls from Cobden public school who are here watching the debate

today. I know that they'll be interested in this particular subject, because sometime not too far down the road, they will be potential owners and buyers of vehicles. They will want to know that

what they're getting is a good-quality car and what they've spent a lot of their money on is a worthwhile investment.

On the resale item, before I get along too far, I actually agree with the two members who spoke about resale. This province is implementing a branding program

that will deal with salvaged vehicles. There's no reason we couldn't implement a program that would say that this particular vehicle was repurchased under a lemon-law- warranty program and unless

substantially repaired would carry that brand. I think that would be a fair and reasonable amendment, and I look forward to hearing that from the committee members as we come forward.

I think I want to close by referring to --

Mr Bisson: First of all, read the note.

Mr Sampson: No. It's from Brennan. It will take some time to read.

I want to conclude by saying that what really got me on to this was a message I received from one of the individuals who wrote me after I first tabled this

bill. Here's their comment -- I'm not going to mention any names, but I'm sure if they're watching today or reading this, they will recognize it: "At first, all I wanted to do was give up. In this

day and age, who has the time to deal with something as time-consuming as a car with a definite problem with no suitable solution?"

That actually is a comment that many of the people who wrote to me would recognize, and I think this bill does provide the solution that consumers are looking

for.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for ballot item number 9. I will place the question to dispose of this ballot item at 12

o'clock noon.

INQUIRY INTO

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS

IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE

SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES

RELATIVES AUX PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL

INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS

DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

Mr Guzzo moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to establish a commission to inquire into the investigations by police forces of complaints of sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall area

/ Projet de loi 45, Loi visant à créer une commission chargée d'enquêter sur les enquêtes menées par des corps de police sur les plaintes de mauvais traitements

d'ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall.

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

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): On April 30 this year, in this chamber, the Lieutenant Governor of this province, the Queen's

representative, read our speech from the throne. I wish at this time to quote from pages 16 and 17 of that speech. He said:

"Your government believes that children, victims and other vulnerable people deserve special protection under the law. Those who would seek to harm the

innocent deserve the strongest possible punishment" -- not protection; punishment.

"That's why your government will fight child abuse, including increasing the front-line resources dedicated to fighting child pornography. It will also provide

additional resources to rescue children from sexual exploitation, strengthen its high-risk offender strategy and try child exploitation cases in special courts as developed with the judiciary."

Twenty-three days later, the platform of this party was released, on the Friday morning of a long weekend, pray tell. You may not have heard of it, or a lot of

people may not have heard of it, but I'd like to quote from it, because it picks up on the throne speech. It says on page 45:

"Protecting Our Children

"We will provide a special level of protection for children, the most vulnerable members of our society, from predators and other criminals, including:

"More than doubling the front-line resources for fighting child pornography

"Creating special courts for child exploitation cases, and expanding our system of child friendly court facilities across Ontario

"Targeting crown resources to cases involving sex crimes against children in order to help get them to trial faster

"Fighting the threat of the sex trade to children and minors by strengthening" -- our present legislation

"Vigorously prosecuting employers who hire persons under 18 in the adult entertainment and sex trades

"Creating safe houses for children whom we rescue from the sex trade (funded in part by the proceeds of crime ...

"Insisting that anyone convicted of any crime involving sexual exploitation of children serve their full sentence without chance for early release."

Accepting the throne speech and the policy as drafted, I suggest to you that anyone running for this party, if there is an election called in the very near

future or within the next 12 months, could not in good conscience vote against this bill.

We're dealing here with a very serious matter. It's the third time that I've brought this bill before this House. It's the root of the existence of this

government.

No one here is suing or looking for money. It kind of compares to Ipperwash on that basis. It is simply an opportunity to have the truth come out.

There have been cases in the past in the Cornwall area and elsewhere here in Ontario with regard to claims for payment. There were 11 settlements that I know

about in the Cornwall area, all with a confidentiality clause protecting the information from coming out.

It's very important for people to understand that this is not an attack on the Catholic Church. My friend Mr Cleary, the member for Cornwall, is a practising

Roman Catholic, and he supports this bill. I myself am a practising Roman Catholic. But we are embarrassed, like a number of other people, by the $290 million that has been paid out in recent years

in the United States. It's not just the money that has been paid out by the church; it's the evidence of Cardinal Law in Boston and his former assistant, Bishop Daly, now in New York. I read the

depositions on certain cases in that jurisdiction of both of these men, and I have to say to you that somebody is committing perjury. It's a very embarrassing situation.

I read the depositions of Bishop Flores in Texas, where he denied his own signature 17 times in 400 pages. Over 200 times, in 400 pages, he answered, "I don't

recall," notwithstanding the evidence of his own signature. As one prosecuting attorney in Dallas said to me, "It was more like an insider trader caught with his hand in the cookie jar than a

prince of the Church." Not much of that has been reported or has come forward in the press here in Canada.

I want to read to you a quote from a priest who pleaded guilty in Massachusetts in April of last year. He said, "What they," the church, "were protecting is

the notion that the church is a perfect society. If the archdiocese really wanted to protect its other priests from scandal, they would have gotten those of us who abused children out of there much

earlier."

That's a very, very ringing truism, and I suggest to you that it applies to this government: if we really wanted to protect children, we'd have gotten around

to this a lot earlier.

I've provided, in the last two bills, volumes of evidence with regard to what has gone on. Today I have included and handed out a copy of the brochure that the

Coalition for Action on Child Sexual Abuse in Cornwall has circulated. They have 20 questions. I'm not going to deal with those now because I want to touch on some of the new evidence I have

circulated with my bill this time around. But I say to you that if you really didn't want an inquiry that was going to dig out the truth, you might at least sit down and answer these questions; you

might sit down and give these people a truthful answer to these 20 questions.

With regard to the new evidence -- some of it is historic. But I wanted to read, if I could, from a document that has come to my attention. It has not been

reported in the Ottawa Citizen or the Toronto Star, and it certainly has not been reported in the Standard Freeholder in Cornwall. It's about another lawsuit in the United States. It's not a

question of a person who, after 30 years, has a recall of abuse; somebody looking for a large sum of money as a result of something that happened years ago. It's a lawsuit that was commenced in

California by the diocese of San Bernardino, and the defendant is the diocese of Boston; one prince of the church suing another prince of the church. It claims that it's unprecedented. The suit

against the Boston diocese was filed in April this year, and it alleges that the church officials in Boston allowed this Father Shanley to transfer to California through a series of

"misrepresentations and suppression of information," and that "not disclosing Father Shanley's well-known sexual predations, dating back at least three decades and known for three decades in the

Boston diocese, constituted active misconduct and negligence."

What the bishop in San Bernardino is saying is, "You sent him here, and we took him in good faith. We're getting sued, and now our insurance company wants us

to sue you to get your insurance company to pay, not ours." A pleasant situation.

But it wasn't the first place that the Boston dioceses had sent Father Shanley. Father Shanley was an advocate of man-boy sex. He preached it, and they knew

about it. He had a group that he associated with. He was sent to other places. He had associates at other places. They traded like hockey players in the National Hockey League, where the bishop is

acting like a general manager: "You send me your two worst offenders and I'll send you mine. Get them out of here" -- interesting theory, interesting practice. And where did some of these people

go? Well, Father Shanley had been in New York as well as California. He also came to Canada. He didn't come to Toronto. We were safe in Ottawa. His associates went to New Brunswick, Quebec and

Ontario. It's interesting that they would show up in eastern Ontario.

I draw the attention of the House to the documentation. I have included therein a copy of some of the old evidence. I will deal with it at a subsequent time

this morning. I asked them in particular to refer to the court documentation, the draft minutes of settlement that were filed in Ottawa in the Superior Court of Justice action, and I'll try and

deal with it at a later time as well.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise in the House today with mixed emotions. I'm please to support Mr Guzzo's bill, but

I am also disappointed that this bill and its variations have not yet received the full support of the Legislature. I am sad and disappointed that this has not happened, for the victims and their

families, who have suffered for years and who continue to suffer because of our collective inability to bring the truth forward.

Over the past 30 years, as an elected representative of Ontario, I have never seen an issue that has divided a community as much as this has. People are

hurting. The issue is not going to die. I know that until it's dealt with, it will not die. Many in our community feel very strongly that the passage of the bill would bring the truth to light and

finally allow the community to heal. It is for this reason that I feel compelled to support Mr Guzzo's attempts to see the development of a public inquiry.

Although the background and history of this case have been presented in the House before, I believe it deserves repeating, and I would ask all members to

listen very carefully.

In the early 1990s, an investigation into the sexual abuse of minors began in our area after the police services board received several complaints. I remember

them all well. The Cornwall police department underwent a review of their procedure and found nothing irregular about their investigations into the charges of sexual abuse perpetrated against

minors during the course of the preceding 25 years. As a result, no formal charges were laid and the case was deemed closed.

Evidently, this internal review did not satisfy the public, and continued disapproval forced a subsequent review by the Ontario Province Police. The OPP

investigation was completed in December 1994, and the results of that investigation mirrored the previous one. The investigation cited no conclusive evidence to lay formal charges. Nevertheless,

citizens' groups continued to feel that justice was not being served, and they took it upon themselves to undergo an investigation. As a result of the evidence they found, Project Truth was

established and 117 charges were subsequently laid against 15 individuals. One hundred and nine of these charges were alleged to have happened before 1994.

To state that something was amiss in the investigations of the Cornwall police department and the OPP is seemingly self-evident, given the charges laid against

15 individuals. If implemented, the bill before us will help us to understand why both police departments failed in their investigations to draw out the truth of sexual abuse perpetrated against

minors.

I want to take this opportunity to stress that this is not a vendetta. As I stated before, the primary purpose of this bill is to establish a commission of

inquiry into the investigations undertaken by the police forces into allegations of sexual abuse against minors in our area. The bill concerns itself with the police investigations into claims of

sexual abuse. The inquiry will not determine whether individuals are innocent or guilty of perpetrating sexual abuse against minors.

It is for this reason that I believe it inappropriate to implicate individuals in this Legislature. I believe that some individuals have been wrongly named as

participating in these horrendous activities, and it is not our job as elected representatives to drag the names and reputations of these individuals through the mud. Questions of guilt and

innocence must be dealt with before the courts, not the Legislature.

Certainly there is evidence that suggests there was a pedophile ring operating in our area. During a Project Truth trial, the defendant admitted that while he

had never abused, he knew a ring was operating in eastern Ontario. A public inquiry would serve to find out why, if this ring was operating in the community, the police were not able to find the

evidence until Project Truth was launched in the late 1990s.

Previous bills pertaining to the Cornwall area situation introduced by the member from Ottawa West-Nepean have been blocked by members who maintain an inquiry

will impair proper court proceedings. I quote, for example, the Attorney General at the time, the Honourable Jim Flaherty: "It would be inappropriate for us as the government to take action that

would potentially interfere or prejudice or in some way jeopardize criminal prosecutions arising out of very serious events that are alleged to have taken place in the Cornwall area over the course

of some years."

I want to assure the honourable members of the House that this couldn't be further from the truth. Take, for example, the precedent of Walkerton, where

independent inquiries were conducted at the same time as criminal investigations and proceedings were underway. The creation of this commission of inquiry can be tailored so that it doesn't in any

way unduly prejudice any criminal investigations. These are all arguments that have been made in the past by the member from Ottawa West-Nepean, and as a judge he is much better suited than I am to

make these statements.

In closing, I want to thank the member across the way for spearheading this inquiry. I want to thank him for his honesty and commitment to this file. The work

he has done has been unparalleled, and I want to assure him that he has not gone unnoticed in my riding for the non-partisan way he has handled this case.

The bill is an important to recovery in our community. It is time the community is given the facts and begins to heal old wounds.

I have to talk about the 12,000 people in my community who presented 12,000 names on the petition. These constituents were from my riding and from

Prescott-Russell.

All the issues that were dealt with on this particular incident -- the public inquiry, the police investigation -- were handled through my Cornwall office at

the request of victims and constituents.

Some victims came from other provinces so that I could hear what they had to say. Some of the ones who have been named told me they were not guilty. They shook

my hand and looked me in the eye. In my opinion, they are innocent. This is the reason why I say we should have a public inquiry, because when you see a grown man come into your office with his

wife or a family member with tears in his eyes, there's a problem there.

I do want to thank the member for bringing this before the Legislature again.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise again, as I have on a number of occasions, as a result of Mr Guzzo bringing forward bills and

resolutions time and time again. I'm glad that I'm here again, because I don't know whether we're going to get another chance to deal with this issue in this place during the time of this

Parliament.

I think any objective observer who's watching and listening to the discussion has got to be at least somewhat moved by the fact that this is originating from

the government's own benches. So the last thing in the world that this is is any kind of political ploy. The fact that the honourable member who's raising this, Mr Guzzo, is a former judge adds

that much more weight to the merit of the arguments, as does the fact that the Liberal member in the area, Mr Cleary, is supportive today and has been, I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong --

supportive all along the way to get this dealt with. And it's his community as much as Mr Guzzo's.

How do I fit into this? Why do I feel so close to this? Part of the time frame involved here was during my watch. I was the civilian head, the public person

accountable for the OPP during some of the time that's here. If there's anything wrong there, I want to say very clearly once again, as a former Solicitor General, that I want it to come out.

Now, does that mean I may have been found remiss or derelict in my duties? I don't know. I hope not. I don't think so. But was there something I did that I

shouldn't have, or, more importantly, something I didn't do that I should have? I don't know, but I'm not afraid to have that come out.

The process has worked to the extent that this has not gone away, and if at the end of the day, whenever that is, it turns out that there was good reason for

us to continually debate this issue, then the system does work. But part of that system is for the government to recognize that there are points along the way where debates in this House cannot be

ignored.

You've got the government's own member who lives in the area, a former judge, continuously rising in his place and saying, "There's something wrong here.

Something has to be done, and I'm calling on my government to do it."

Again, you've got the Liberal opposition member for the area, notwithstanding some concerns he has raised, pointing out that this is not a vendetta from his

point of view and that there are innocent names to be cleared as much as there are other facts to be found out.

I'm rising as a member of the third party, and I believe I'm speaking for my caucus when I say that we support this. My House leader is indicating that's the

case. Certainly as an individual parliamentarian responsible in part for the time that's here, I want this to be done. That's the only way we can make the justice system work. Yes, elected

officials have a responsibility to back the system. If the Attorney General and the Solicitor General of the day aren't supporting the justice system and the processes we have, we don't have a

justice system.

The flip side of that responsibility is that when something is wrong -- and make no mistake: justice systems are created by people; people make mistakes. There

are complicated systems; systems fail. Information gets played with, facts get twisted, people lie. Sometimes innocent people get hurt. For all those reasons, part of the system needs to be that

when we reach a certain trigger -- and I grant you, this is not necessarily part of the normal justice system appeal process. You don't normally go from the courts to the floor of the Legislature.

But I maintain that part of the system has got to be that when you've got something like you have here today, with Mr Guzzo, Mr Cleary, myself and, I'm willing to bet, a number of other members who

are going to rise in their place and support this also, when we reach that point in this political process and in this imperfect justice system, notwithstanding the fact, and I want to go on the

record as saying this, that we have arguably one of the best justice systems, if not the best, in the world, I can't for the life of me understand how the current Solicitor General, Attorney

General and Premier can continue to ignore this issue.

This speaks to some of the values that each of us as members and as parents hold as close and dear to our hearts as you can find. We're talking about the

potential abuse of our children. Yet again, there's no politics being played here. I challenge any member to stand up and point a finger, and be clear who you're talking about, at anyone who is

playing politics with this issue. That's a hard argument to make in this case today, and what's a harder argument to make is to deny the next step.

I suspect Mr Guzzo would be prepared to consider any alternative that the government might come to him with, if at the end of the day he and Mr Cleary and

others felt it was going to bring to light the issues they think are still being kept in the dark. I want to emphasize again that I don't know whether anybody has done anything wrong with intent or

whether this is just a miscarriage of justice. I don't know, but neither does anybody else, and that's the point.

The government cannot in good conscience continue to ignore this issue. Our justice and policing systems only work when the public has faith in them. Part of

that process, again, is where we are today. This cannot be ignored. It's only going to get worse. It festers. We hear the members from the area setting aside their partisan politics on the brink of

an election, probably within a few months. They are coming forward and saying, "Help us remove this stain, this question, that hangs over our community." Come on, there are a lot of people who

speak of this. We all hear it. We hear a lot of things. Most of it's not true. But in this case there are enough questions and enough evidence that something needs to be done.

This really is the court of last appeal in this case. If the system itself, through its appeal procedure and investigative processes, hasn't reached a

conclusion that satisfies the questions at hand and the ministers of the day refuse, including the first minister, Premier Eves, as his predecessor Premier Harris refused, to step in, then I can

appreciate the frustration of Mr Guzzo, who I'm sure doesn't really want to stand up and have this kind of discussion about his own cabinet colleagues, again, on the ramp-up to an election. I don't

think he cherishes that, but he's doing the one thing he can do as a local member, and that is to wait for your opportunity, and when you have that opportunity, seize it, and that's what he's

doing.

Now we're seeing the kind of support we've seen so far. We have another roughly half hour to go on the clock. I'll be very shocked if anybody stands up and

makes a case that we ought not to do this. For the people affected, for the communities affected, for the reputation of those communities and of those individuals, we have to get to the bottom of

this. It's not going to happen by itself, and it's not going to go away.

That's why I feel so strongly about this, because I've been there. I have enough concern as a former Solicitor General to stand up and put my reputation on the

line, both now and in terms of the time that I was in office, to put all of that on the line, and what I want to know is, why isn't everybody else who had some responsibilities during the time

frames involved prepared to do the same thing? There is no adequate answer, not when you consider how many years we've been dealing with this.

The people of eastern Ontario deserve better from their government. They're entitled to have their issue treated with the respect and severity it deserves.

Make no mistake about it: if this were happening in downtown Toronto, I think we'd have a whole different approach to this. But somehow, because it's far away from Toronto, it's eastern Ontario --

I don't know; is that part of it?

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: I hear one of the members from the area saying, "I hope not." I agree with him. I hope not, and I suspect that's not the

case. I don't think it's a matter of geography. But when you don't have answers from the people who are in positions to answer questions and give reasons, you have to reach out for some rationale,

because the only thing left after that gets into some really dicey motivations. I think the government owes it to the respect of this place and to the respect of the members who have spoken,

especially those who represent the area, to come in here right now: the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, at the very least the parliamentary assistants to those two ministers or the

parliamentary assistant to the Premier, or, best yet, the Premier himself. But somebody should walk in here in the next 20 minutes and either say, "Yes, this government supports the pursuit of

truth," or give some damned good reasons why not.

Silence is unacceptable. If I were more learned, I'm sure I could reach for quotes from times gone by about what it says about individuals who don't do

anything. Dante comes to mind. This is as serious -- I'm not going to go over the top and say it's the most serious, but I'm going to say to you that this is as serious an issue as we can deal

with, during this time in particular, during private members' public business.

I want to conclude my remarks by again being very clear that this caucus, the NDP caucus and myself as a former Solicitor General, support this. We want the

inquiry. We want the truth. I say to my colleagues, if we want the public to continue to support our police and our justice system when they go wrong, we're the ones that have to step in. Human

nature is going to take place. All through systems -- and you know what I'm talking about -- when people get frightened that they've made a mistake or they're going to be found out or that they may

have had a part, even if it wasn't anything criminal, just somebody didn't do their job the way it should have been done; whatever. There are a whole lot of things that kick in along the way, and

if we accept the fact that they aren't perfect systems, they aren't perfect people who run those systems -- with all due respect, judges aren't perfect. They're no more perfect than cabinet members

and MPPs and everybody else.

But the public has a right, if we're going to maintain the reputation of the kind of justice system we're proud of, that when something goes wrong, we've got

to step forward and put the light of truth on it. We have to, because if we don't, it's the slippery slope into a society that is unacceptable to all of us. If we don't rise to those

responsibilities, if we don't stand here as Mr Guzzo has done and Mr Cleary has done -- and I can't tell you how proud I am of them as fellow parliamentarians, to put it all on the line and say,

"This has to be looked at." If we're not prepared to do that, who's going to do it? Where's the other place? Where are the other people? Who can make this happen? Who can correct this wrong? Or at

the very least, who can find a process that will let us see where there were wrongs and fix them? That is equally important.

I hope that Mr Guzzo gets the unanimous support he deserves, and I hope the government listens, because it's the right thing to do for the people and

communities that are affected.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): It's a pleasure to rise this morning to speak on this issue. I'm not going to refer to the

Cornwall issue, because I'm certainly no expert. I don't feel I have the information to comment properly, but I want to make general comments with regard to child abuse, whether it be physical or

sexual abuse. As my colleague Mr Guzzo mentioned, it's a very serious matter, and Mr Cleary mentioned that he speaks to it with mixed emotions. It is certainly a very serious matter. How do you

speak on this subject matter? Personally I find it abhorrent that anyone, whether that person is in a position of responsibility or wherever that person happens to be, would take advantage of a

young person, because once an adult takes advantage of a young person, I think you're robbing that young individual of their future. I think you mark them for life.

There's no doubt that there's too much of it going on in the world. We look at the newspaper. I think the Sun has been a conducting a survey or articles in the

past week. I refer to the May 27 issue. It says, "More than one million child abuse images were found secured in a steel bunker in the basement of a luxurious North York home in February 2000."

It goes to show that it's not only the poor or the medium-income but people in high places, people who have the financial wherewithal, people who are certainly

in responsible positions. The

article goes on, "Adult sexual interest in children is far more widespread than what we had acknowledged prior to the Internet."

There's no doubt, with the advent of the Internet, that the proliferation of child pornography has certainly gone much further than we had expected. When we

talk about pornography, I think we talk about abuse. Like I said, it's difficult because you talk with mixed emotions. As a parent, I've seen my three children grow up into adults. I would hate to

see somebody in a responsible position, whether it's a priest, a judge, a lawyer, an uncle, a teacher, whatever, take advantage of that young person. I don't know how I would have reacted as a

parent to see my children abused by someone. I don't think I would have taken very kindly to that. As responsible citizens, whether we live in Ontario or anywhere in the world, I think we have to

put ourselves in that situation. What right have we got to take advantage of young people? We don't have that right. It's not a God-given right. It's not a socially given right.

protégé. C'est vraiment incroyable et j'ai beaucoup de difficulté; c'est impossible de comprendre comment une personne dans une position responsable peut prendre avantage d'un jeune

enfant aujourd'hui.

I'm sure that my colleagues Mr Guzzo and Mr Cleary have looked with trepidation into the situation in Cornwall. I'm sure they've considered the subject matter.

I know there are names that have been mentioned in the newspaper, in the Legislature. Like I said, it's not my role to do this, because I do not have the information, but I agree with my colleague

Mr Christopherson when he said that we have to do the right thing as parliamentarians. If the system is failing our children, who is going to protect the children in this province? It is our role

to make sure that whatever happens, whether it's in Cornwall, Petrolia, Grand Bend, Hamilton or anywhere in the province, we protect our young people.

There is one thing I would certainly urge the federal government to do. We've taken the responsibility of having a registry for child abusers in Ontario, and I

think we have to do that at the federal level. The federal government saw fit to spend $1 billion to have guns registered in this country. I think it's about time we started looking at where our

priorities are. I think we would have been in a much better position spending $1 billion toward trying to control child abuse in this province and in this country than spending it on gun control. I

think it's much more important that we protect the young people of this province and this country.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This, regrettably, is the third time this bill has come before the House and it should have been

resolved the first time. As a long-serving CAS board member, as a foster parent with my family for some 16 years, we have worked with quite a number of children who have been sexually abused.

It is difficult for me to find anything that is worse than the sexual abuse of a child, but it is also horrible for an individual who is maliciously and

falsely accused of sexual abuse. Both parties suffer greatly. I don't know all the facts in this case -- I don't believe any members here know all the facts -- but indeed as the years pass, as we

continue to debate it, we lose the facts, we lose the information, making it more difficult. This is a bill that, deep in their hearts, every member in this Legislature should not hesitate for one

second to support.

There are obviously questions. In my involvement with the child welfare system we have heard rumours for years about the Cornwall area. Rumours are horrible,

vicious things that need to be stopped, but they can be stopped only with the presentation of the facts.

I would reverse the discussion we've had over the years here and say to all the members, why not hold an inquiry? Give me a valid reason for not holding it. We

have a large number of alleged victims who have come forward, we have individuals who have come forward and gone to Mr Cleary and professed their innocence, but still the rumours exist. It simply

can't be cost. If this government has $400 million for advertisements, they have the money to hold an inquiry.

We have heard from the government side the need for the federal government to have a sexual abuse registry. That registry does not work if the province does

not do its work, hold an inquiry and obtain convictions if convictions should be obtained. The federal registry will not register innocent individuals. There has to be a conviction, and that

responsibility lies with the province of Ontario.

Why else can it not be held? I can't think of a reason. If there are victims out there, they need closure and healing. The young people we have fostered have

had their lives changed forever. They have become an adult at the age of five or six and they know information they should never have to know. The abuse is

an act they will never, ever forget until

their dying day. It has altered the very fabric of their life. So if there have been actions, then have the inquiry and be able to lay that to rest and allow them to move on with counselling.

Children must be protected. The experience I have garnered from my reading and discussion with social workers is that if an individual offends against a child,

the odds are extremely high they will reoffend. If there are indeed offenders who have escaped the justice system, this inquiry must be held. I know without a doubt there is not one member in this

House who would not be deeply disturbed if they knew that as a result of this inaction there were future offences taking place, destroying our young people's lives.

The inquiry must be held to determine if in fact there are offenders, and justice must be done. We in this Legislature have the ultimate responsibility to

protect our children. This role of MPP is not a power role; it does not give us the power to be particularly important in the province. It makes us servants of the people of Ontario, who very

clearly have said to their members in their community, "We want this matter laid to rest. We want guilt, if there is, determined; we want innocence, if there is, determined."

We are here as a voice of the people in our community and the voice of the people in Ontario. We have heard now for four years the voice of the people in

Ontario saying, "We want justice and we want to protect our children."

I urge every member to forget partisan politics and think about the young people of Cornwall who need protection, think about the people of Cornwall who want

justice and think about the victims to allow them to move on and be able to develop the opportunities they need, because at this point they are not getting the supports they need as victims.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Let me first compliment the member from Ottawa West-Nepean for bringing forward this bill again.

I usually start off with a comment or two saying it's a pleasure to speak to the bill. This is not a pleasure. I feel it's an obligation on my part to speak to

this bill, and I believe my conscience also dictates that I speak to this bill.

This bill is about, to a degree, the condition of our society these days. It's about truth. It's about getting to the bottom of what really happened over the

last 10 or 15 years in the Cornwall area. It's about getting answers that are long overdue.

Sexual abuse of minors, I believe, is becoming a blight on our society and we don't seem to be able to rectify it, nor do we seem to be able to solve the

problem. Sexual abuse of minors should not be tolerated in this country, in our society. This bill is about making sure, through extensive investigation, re-looking at evidence, looking at the

circumstances surrounding the various instances, revisiting all the evidence, justice prevailed or not. I want to make sure there has not been a blind eye turned to any investigation of this type.

This is not about a criticism of it. It's about making sure that we know what really happened down there and making sure that it does not happen again. As I mentioned, sexual abuse, in my mind, is

intolerable. If a public inquiry into this situation stops one more incident of sexual abuse in this province or this country, then maybe it was worthwhile.

I'm very fortunate that, first of all, I have three kids. Secondly, I have eight grandchildren. Four of them are young ladies and four are young gentlemen, and

two of them happened to be in my house last Sunday. The last two are twin boys. Maybe Jim can relate a bit to this. Twins or triplets are interesting, and these two young gentlemen are interesting.

They are coming on three years old and they are an absolute delight.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Really?

Mr Stewart: Yes, they are. They take after their mother and their grandmother, not their father and their grandfather.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): And you can thank the Lord for that.

Mr Stewart: Absolutely. That's right.

Mr Guzzo asked me to speak to this bill last week. I happened to be watching these two kids playing around on the rug on Sunday and I thought to myself, "What

would you do if you knew that anybody was abusing those two kids?" I shudder to think what I might do if I knew that somebody was abusing those two kids or the grandkids I have of the other sex.

Maybe some people in the public will say, "He sounds like he's a very bad man." Well, maybe I am. But look in the mirror and look at your grandkids and say, "What would I do if I knew somebody was

sexually abusing them?" You know that the experience those kids would have to go through all their life would be twice as bad if those who committed the crime, or the sexual abuse, were not

prosecuted.

I am extremely supportive of this bill. I think this type of inquiry has to be done, should be done and it is the responsibility of our government to look into

it.

When you come to vote on this bill, think about Cornwall, think about the other Cornwalls in this great country and think about the possibility that there

could be other Cornwalls in the future. This is happening every day in our society. It's happening in our schools. It's happening in our spiritual communities. It's happening on the streets. It's

happening in the homes. I would suggest to you that we'd better find out all the facts in this particular case. If there are those who committed a crime, then they should be prosecuted to give the

victims some sort of closure.

As I mentioned, there are many questions that have come up during these past many numbers of years, questions like, why did the Catholic church violate its own

protocol by paying $32,000 in hush money to a former altar boy who complained about being sexually abused by a priest? I don't care whether it's a priest or who it is; if it's sexual abuse of a

minor, it is wrong. Why did the Cornwall police drop an investigation into a charge of child sexual abuse by a priest after the church's $32,000 payoff? There are questions that should be answered.

Why did the second OPP investigation find 15 people to charge when the first OPP investigation found no one to charge? I think there are many, many unanswered questions, and we have to do this type

of inquiry to answer them for the victims, for the people of Cornwall and for other Ontarians, and just maybe, we can bring closure to this type of thing on behalf of the victims of Cornwall.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Guzzo: I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments, particularly in light of the last couple of issues raised by my colleague for

Peterborough. I've distributed the pamphlet that the coalition from Cornwall has distributed. It has 20 questions thereon. If you don't want an inquiry, if you've got some reason that there

shouldn't be an inquiry, for God's sake, surely we should sit down and give answers to these questions. Surely it's time.

When this matter was raised in Bill 48 and Bill 103, the argument was of course that we can't do it, notwithstanding what happened at the Westray mine when

they carried it on at the same time. "We can't do it. It's going to interfere with criminal prosecutions." Well, guess what? It's been five and half years since Krever on tainted blood, and we

finally got around to laying some charges -- no impairment there. We may not have charged all the people, all the higher-ups, but it hasn't impaired it. And in Walkerton, have we laid charges as

result of an inquiry that went forth? Of course. So the arguments that have been put forward in the past have been dispelled and properly so.

When I stood in this place on Bill 48 and Bill 103, I made a statement that this was either the most incompetent police investigation that has been reviewed by

the member for Cornwall -- where the Cornwall police said there was nothing there; they reviewed themselves. They called in the Ottawa police, a six-month commitment, and after six days the Ottawa

police said, "No, we're not going to touch it. We haven't the time."

Then the OPP does an investigation and says there's nothing amiss. They can't find anybody. They issue a press release on Christmas Eve. Then, when the

citizens do their homework and get the evidence for them and deliver it to two ministries of this government, we go back to Project Truth and 120 charges are laid against 15 people.

I made the statement at that time that it had to be the most incompetent police situation I've seen in the Commonwealth, or there was a cover-up. Let me make

it pointedly clear: I stand here today and I make no allegation of incompetence. This has been a cover-up. We're dealing with corruption, and if we don't want to face it, if we haven't got the

backbone, then we have to live by it.

I started this in a very professional manner. I wrote to my Premier in confidence. I waited five months and didn't get a reply, and I rewrote to him in

confidence. I was stonewalled, and then I was lied to. You read the document that I have forwarded to you, the story in the April 1 Ottawa Sun comment. It's attached to the letter signed by

Inspector Hall. You will see therein what I am talking about. I have mentioned on other occasions the fact that Inspector Hall's letter is dated 67 weeks after the two ministries received the

documentation. I leave it to you, and I thank you for your assistance.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item 10.

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S

WARRANTY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA GARANTIE DES FABRICANTS

DE VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item 9.

Mr Sampson has moved second reading of Bill 40,

An Act respecting warranties offered by manufacturers of motor vehicles. Is it the pleasure of the House that

the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

The member for Mississauga Centre.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): I just wanted to see whether you were awake, Speaker. I'd rather the bill be referred to the finance

committee.

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

INQUIRY INTO

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS

IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE

SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES

RELATIVES AUX PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL

INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS

DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 10.

Mr Guzzo has moved second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to establish a commission to inquire into the investigations by police forces of complaints of sexual

abuse against minors in the Cornwall area.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

McDonald, AL

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Stewart, R. Gary

Wood, Bob

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 47; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to have the bill ordered for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

It being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House adjourned from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to speak of a tragedy that occurred in Hamilton. On September 29, 1997, 14-month-old baby

Maliek was beaten to death and died in Hamilton General Hospital. Previous injuries to this baby included a broken left thigh bone, at which time he lost so much blood before being treated that he

needed a blood transfusion before surgery, severe bruises and scrapes to his body. At the time of his death, the baby was in a coma and had a cast from hip to toe on the left side of his body, was

covered in old and new bruises, and had scrapes on his face, a fresh cut on his upper lip and three skull fractures. Throughout his short life, he was admitted to hospitals in Hamilton and

Brantford. The children's aid societies in Hamilton and Brantford had been involved. It was only eight days after the children's aid society approved his release that this baby was murdered. His

father was convicted of second-degree murder.

I stand here today to ask the solicitor general to call a public inquiry into the child protection system in Ontario. The Hamilton children's aid society has

also urged him to do the same.

This type of tragedy today in Ontario is unacceptable, unexplainable and cannot be allowed to be repeated. Hospitals were involved and children's aid societies

were involved, yet somehow this 14-month-old, innocent, cute, chubby little child died a death that none of us could ever imagine anyone should go through. What he suffered in the 14 months of his

life, most people, fortunately, don't ever suffer in their whole life.

I stand here today and urge the solicitor general to call an inquest into the child protection system in Ontario and how it let this young, innocent child

down.

SUPERBUILD

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to make an announcement that our government has invested $268,000 through SuperBuild to build a new

arena on Georgina Island in my riding to benefit the Chippewa community. It was a pleasure for me to present the cheque to Chief Bill McCue and Councillor Brett Mooney.

This SuperBuild investment will help provide an important gathering place where families can enjoy access to a variety of recreational activities for the

community. Chief McCue was pleased that the new arena will provide a much-needed community facility and will improve the quality of life for Georgina Island residents. The Ontario SuperBuild

program recognizes that investments in sports and recreational infrastructure make an important contribution to Ontario's quality of life.

The residents of the town of East Gwillimbury have also benefited from SuperBuild's investment to rehabilitate and redesign the 22-acre Anchor Park to maximize

use for both family and sports recreation activities. Building community facilities means that families can come together to participate in recreational activities. This is fundamental to the

strength and health of our communities.

GAY PRIDE WEEK

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I want to stand before the House and encourage all members of the Ontario Legislature to mark

June 23 to 29 on their calendars, because it's the annual Gay Pride events in the city of Toronto. Everybody will know that Gay Pride is one of the signature events in the city of Toronto.

Bookended with Caribana, it marks one of the most important kickoffs of the summer season in our city.

We also know from media reports that the organizers of Gay Pride are experiencing some concerns around their ability to stage the event as they always have

because of revenue declines. I want to say that this event, which occurs annually, attracts hundreds of thousands of people and contributes more than $76 million in economic impact to the city of

Toronto.

I've been working very hard with Minister Coburn, the Minister of Tourism, and other officials in the Ontario government and other levels of government to

ensure the support that is required to make sure this signature event for the city of Toronto is staged as it always has been, to ensure that we put our best face forward, and to make sure we send

a message to the world that Toronto is not being impacted and that people are coming out and supporting signature events in our city.

I think it's important this year for all of us who live in Toronto and who want to celebrate our city that we send the clearest possible message by supporting

Gay PrideWeek. I would like to extend an invitation to any of those people who have looked in on this event from home to come down to Yonge Street on June 29 and experience one of the most

extraordinary events to take place in our city over the course of a year.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise to express my utter astonishment at the refusal of the Liberals across the way to support

the government bill to return Toronto's Catholic students back to the classrooms, where they belong. They should be ashamed of themselves. They spin and weave to avoid supporting the return to the

classrooms that is being demanded by parents, who rightly fear their children's school year could be put in jeopardy.

We on this side of the House believe that parents and teachers want their students back in the classroom. We believe in putting students first. That's why

Premier Eves introduced Bill 28, the back-to-school bill.

I've yet to hear a rational explanation as to why Liberals oppose this bill. I wish they would come clean so that parents could hear their questionable logic.

Surely they are not against teachers filling out report cards with comments and grades -- obviously they are; otherwise, they'd support our bill. Nor can they possibly be against teachers

administering tests. Similarly, they must support teachers being able to meet with parents and maintaining co-operative education placements, as well as participating in graduation events -- but

obviously they don't, because they're not supporting this bill.

These are normal responsibilities of teachers, and I can't believe that Liberals believe otherwise. I wish they'd come clean and clearly explain why they won't

support the parents who wish an early return to school. Or is it that Liberals are so afraid of teachers' union bosses that they are unable to proceed with what is right for our kids?

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The deluge of taxpayer-paid advertising by the Eves Conservatives, the gang that was elected promising to

eliminate wasteful spending by government, continues unabated, even with the need for funding for an unexpected health crisis increasing daily.

For several months, the Conservative government of Ernie Eves has used hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to engage in the most blatant self-congratulatory,

partisan advertising blitz on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines, in glossy pamphlets delivered to every household in Ontario, and on huge, newly erected highway signs.

The Chair of Management Board recently admitted that the Harris-Eves advertising spending has now topped $400 million. But it is not the total figure that is a

source of anger in the population; it is the clearly partisan nature of the ads. This abuse of public office and of Ontario taxpayers has become so outrageous that it has prompted the Canadian

Taxpayers Federation and even those who benefit financially from this government largesse, media outlets themselves, to point a critical finger at this unwarranted, unethical and hypocritical

practice.

The Eves Conservatives should repay the taxpayers of this province for this transgression and halt what amounts to cheating in the electoral process.

The government should immediately enact the bill presented to the Ontario Legislature by Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty, which would once and for all time end

this abuse by placing in the hands of the independent Provincial Auditor the authority to reject any advertising deemed to be of a self-congratulatory, partisan nature.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise today to add my voice to that of my colleagues from Hamilton East, Hamilton Mountain, and

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot who have raised the issue, as we have for some time, about school closures in the city of Hamilton. We've now got another round of closures that we're looking

at. Once again, it's ripping the community apart. This time it's not any one particular part of the city; it's the east end, it's downtown Hamilton, it's also in Dundas. It covers the entire city.

I can tell you there is great concern and worry on the part of parents.

I want to bring forward three reasons why this government has an obligation, in my opinion, to put a moratorium on school closures. The first one is, of

course, the Rozanski report. If you had funded totally the recommendations of the Rozanski report, we believe there's a good chance it wouldn't be necessary to close these inner-city schools.

You've underfunded by over $1 billion, and that is a key issue.

Secondly, there's an election coming soon, and I've got to hope things could only get better and there would be more money available. It may be too late if

we've already closed these schools -- another reason to wait.

The last one is that the person making the decision is not an elected representative; he's an appointee. What did he say yesterday? He said, "Our focus as an

organization is not the quality of life in a community, but the quality of education in the classroom." Well, let me tell you that for our trustees the quality of life in the community is just as

important as what happens in that classroom, and they ought not be separated. Only elected trustees are going to adequately deal with that issue.

WORLD CATHOLIC EDUCATION DAY

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Today, May 29, 2003, is World Catholic Education Day. Throughout Ontario, students in Catholic schools are

celebrating learning in their Catholic faith. We can be proud of the government's commitment to funding Ontario's Catholic schools. It was a Conservative government that extended full funding to

Catholic education under former Premier Bill Davis. The Ernie Eves government continues the proud tradition of supporting Ontario's Catholic school system.

Students in Catholic schools across Ontario celebrate today their ability to learn in their faith and learn the values espoused in the system. Catholics in

Ontario and across Canada will join Catholics around the world in celebration of World Catholic Education Day. This day is an opportunity for Catholic schools to celebrate their mission while

joining the world in an expression of faith.

In Canada, Catholic schools educate almost one million students, and of those, 600,000 are educated in Ontario's Catholic school system. Students in Ontario's

Catholic education system reflect the world mosaic of cultures that internationally are celebrating World Catholic Education Day today.

Each year, Ontario's Catholic schools celebrate Catholic education during Catholic Education Week, which was held this year from April 28 to May 2.

I know all members of the House will join with me in acknowledging World Catholic Education Day on behalf of the students, families and teachers in Ontario's

Catholic Education System.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): You just can't trust Ernie Eves. In 2001, Ernie Eves said the private school tax credit was

ludicrous. Ernie declared, "These tax credits should be available only to parents whose children are in schools that teach the curriculum set out by the Ministry of Education."

Ernie said, "A party that worked for seven years to develop core curriculum values shouldn't abandon those values if your child happens to be in the private

education system."

Ernie even said, "Are you in favour of a school that doesn't teach any basic curriculum and teaches hatred?"

Those are Ernie Eves's words from the fall of 2001.

Of course, as with all things Ernie Eves says, his position quickly changed. Within a few months, Ernie Eves was saying he "had no expectation that a public

school curriculum should be an essential part of an independent school education system."

What did Jim Flaherty have to say about that? He said, "I think it was a flip-flop." You can't trust Ernie Eves, and Jim Flaherty agrees.

Of course, Ernie Eves isn't the only Conservative to change his position on the private school tax credit. Mike Harris once said it would take $700 million out

of public schools. Janet Ecker said it would undermine public education.

The public has a choice: they can choose five more years of the Harris-Eves Tories tearing our schools down or Dalton McGuinty's Liberals building them up.

They can choose between the best public education for all our kids or private education for those who have the money and can afford to pay. They can choose change. They can choose a responsible

government like the Dalton McGuinty government. They will trust them.

CHILDREN'S GOLF PROGRAM

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I rise today to inform the House of a wonderful announcement made in Niagara on Tuesday. Former Premier Mike

Harris, who is now the chairman of Ontario's Promise, joined the Niagara Parks Commission, the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara, and myself to announce a program for Niagara's kids. The Boys and

Girls Club will supervise 72 underprivileged kids in the Niagara region who will be able to attend the Niagara Parks Commission's Legends on the Niagara famed golf academy. The 72 kids will get

three lessons donated by the teaching staff at Legends on the Niagara. At the end of those three lessons over the summer they will get an opportunity to play in Niagara Parks Commission's Oak Hall

golf course.

The program fulfills some of Ontario's Promise's principles; for instance, providing a safe place to play and learn and ensuring an adult who cares in their

lives. I want to thank Cathy Sherk, Tony Evershed, Geoff Law and the teaching staff at Legends on the Niagara, who will be the lead pros teaching the kids. I want to thank Niagara Parks Commission

chair Brian Merrett and the commissioners, who agreed to this program. Thanks also to Joanne Hett and her staff at the Boys and Girls Club, as well as the board who will oversee the program, which

is great news for kids who would otherwise not get such an opportunity. I know the 10 kids who were there to open the program on Tuesday had a great day, and they're very much looking forward to

it.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we continue we have with us, in the members' gallery east, a member of the Legislative Assembly in

Alberta, Brent Rathgeber. He's the member for Edmonton-Calder constituency. Please welcome our colleague from Alberta.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

ELIMINATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 ABOLISSANT

LA RETRAITE OBLIGATOIRE

Mr DeFaria moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend the provisions of certain Acts respecting the age of retirement / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant les dispositions de certaines lois

concernant l'âge de la retraite.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker: All those in favour will please will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 8.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I will defer my statement to ministers' statements.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (IMPROVEMENTS FOR SENIORS

AND THE DISABLED), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

(AMÉLIORATIONS À L'INTENTION

DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

OU AYANT UNE INCAPACITÉ)

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act to more fairly permit exemptions from assessment to benefit senior citizens and disabled persons / Projet de loi

69, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière pour rendre l'exemption d'impôt plus équitable à l'égard des personnes âgées ou ayant une

incapacité.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I thank the Legislature for the vote. This would be, I believe, the third or fourth time I've

introduced this bill.

I want to thank Reg Michor for his ongoing assistance in drafting the bill. Reg has worked tirelessly advocating on behalf of seniors and those with physical

disabilities who want to stay in their own homes with their families.

This bill amends the Assessment Act to extend the exemption from taxation for certain features of homes built or renovated to benefit elderly or disabled

residents. I would call on the government to please pass this bill in the interest of fairness to seniors and those with disabilities.

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

Mr Ruprecht moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 70,

An Act to remove barriers to the practice of occupations, professions and trades in Ontario for persons with appropriate qualifications obtained

outside Ontario / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à éliminer les obstacles à l'exercice de professions et de métiers en Ontario par quiconque a obtenu ailleurs les

qualités professionnelles appropriées.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I would first like to thank the members for unanimously approving this bill that has been introduced twice

before.

This bill will ensure that those who are qualified will have a fair chance to contribute to the development of our country. The bill requires that occupational

bodies in considering applications for approval to practise in an occupation do not discriminate against applicants on the basis that they have obtained their occupational qualifications

elsewhere.

Information about the process for applying for occupational approval is to be made accessible to everyone within and outside of Ontario. The only basis for

deciding whether an applicant is competent to practise the occupation in Ontario is to be the performance capacity of the applicant.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without

notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Baird: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list for private members' public

business:

Mr Kennedy and Mr Phillips exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Kennedy assumes ballot item number 42 and Mr Phillips assumes ballot item number

12; and

I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(g), notice for ballot items numbers 12 and 16 be waived.

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: Dispense? Dispensed. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SECURITIES ACT REVIEW

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): It is my pleasure to table a report today entitled the Five-Year Review Committee Final Report --

Reviewing the Securities Act. Ontario's Securities Act,