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

October 10, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-10 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 10 October 2002 Jeudi 10 octobre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT ACT

(CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROCUREURS

(ENTENTES SUR DES

HONORAIRES CONDITIONNELS)

COLLISION REPAIR

STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION

EN CAS DE COLLISION

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT ACT

(CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROCUREURS

(ENTENTES SUR DES

HONORAIRES CONDITIONNELS)

COLLISION REPAIR

STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION

EN CAS DE COLLISION.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

AUTISM SERVICES

LORI BARBER

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

OKTOBERFEST

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

EMPLOYMENT IN NIPISSING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

RIDING NAME

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE REPORT

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

PREMIER'S EXPENSES

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

SENIOR CITIZENS

EDUCATION FUNDING

RED TAPE TO SMART TAPE CONFERENCE

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

SLOT MACHINES

HYDRO RATES

EDUCATION FUNDING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

RICK KERR

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGAL AID SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

Thursday 10 October 2002 Jeudi 10 octobre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT ACT

(CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROCUREURS

(ENTENTES SUR DES

HONORAIRES CONDITIONNELS)

Mr Bryant moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Solicitors Act to permit and to regulate contingency fee agreements / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les procureurs

pour permettre et réglementer les ententes sur des honoraires conditionnels.

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

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): This bill seeks to improve access to justice in the province of Ontario. It is not a panacea; however, it is time

for Ontario to join every other province in this country in regulating and providing legislation that addresses the subject of contingency fees.

This bill seeks to break down the major barrier to Ontarians accessing our courts, and the major barrier is cost. The vast majority of Ontarians do not meet the

legal aid requirements and would not get legal aid. The vast majority of Ontarians, in turn, cannot afford in most cases the cost of counsel in this day and age to bring a matter to our courts. And

that means that the courts in many cases, in many ways, in every part of Ontario have become the exclusive preserve of the very wealthy. This bill seeks to give everybody in Ontario, all Ontarians,

the opportunity to have a matter heard in a forum where economics and politics do not rule the day, where, rather, justice rules the day. That's in our courts.

When I first introduced a bill on contingency fees in the spring, the law of Ontario was that contingency fees were forbidden. That was the position that the

Attorney General took before the Ontario Court of Appeal in hearings last spring in the McIntyre case. The Attorney General of Ontario was articulating the law as everybody assumed it to be; the

statute said, in essence, that if contingency fees were forbidden by the common law, then they were forbidden in Ontario. It turns out, in a decision by Mr Justice Dennis O'Connor, the same Justice

Dennis O'Connor who headed up the Walkerton inquiry, and a panel of very esteemed jurists, Justices MacPherson and Abella, that the common law of Ontario is that contingency fees are not

forbidden.

Therefore, what we have in the province of Ontario quite simply is a situation where contingency fees are legal but totally unregulated -- totally unregulated.

We need to join every other province in the country in providing protection for consumers, to ensure that this currently totally unregulated market protects them from the various abuses that always

may exist.

Every province in the country has had contingency fee legislation in place. Manitoba has had it in place since 1890. Every other province has had it in place for

at least 25 years. The experience of those provinces has been that the legalization of contingency fees has not led to the abuses that I know are a concern -- and I want to address them in my

remaining time -- as long as there's regulation. The concerns are about excessive fees. You address that by providing caps on fees. You address that by ensuring that high fees are regulated by the

courts. You address that by permitting consumers to appeal a fee to the courts through a taxation assessment procedure. You permit it by setting out the circumstances in which a contingency fee

arrangement would take place. For example, under no circumstances should a contingency fee arrangement take place for criminal matters or family law matters. That is set forth in this bill, as is

the regulatory scheme that is needed to deal with this totally unregulated market.

As I said, the main purpose of the bill is to ensure that we get access to justice. The Supreme Court of Canada said in a

decision in 1994 -- Mr Justice Cory said this: "Truly, litigation can only be undertaken by the very rich or the legally aided. Legal rights are illusory and no more than a source of frustration if

they cannot be recognized and enforced." It's common ground that our justice system is inaccessible to the vast majority of people because of cost, at least on civil matters. That's why we need to

give people the opportunity to pay for the fees after they may achieve the damage awards and create circumstances where the risk is borne not by the consumer but instead by the lawyer.

The advisory committee to the Attorney General in September 2000 recommended contingency fee regulation through legislation. That was an effort by the Advocates'

Society, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Bar Association, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and a representative from the academic community, Professor Michael Trebilcock, to come

together and make recommendations on what a contingency fee bill would look like.

I am attempting as best I can in a private member's bill to fulfill that mandate given to the Attorney General through the advisory committee's recommendations,

but I would be remiss if I didn't quickly address the concerns that I know are out there on the subject of contingency fees. The first one, the obvious one is with respect to the Americanization of

our litigation system, that somehow people will be heading off to the courts in droves, clogging up the dockets and achieving multi-million dollar settlements. In Canada, it is just impossible to

do so, as a result of the caps put on damage awards by the Supreme Court of Canada. In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that unlike the United States, we do have a cap on what are

called non-economic losses. "Canada has limited the amount of court awards for non-economic losses (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, reduced life expectancy) to $269,000 in 1999 dollars."

That's the limit in Canada for non-economic losses. In the United States there are no such limits and there have been damages in the millions as a result.

Another concern with contingency fees was, as I referred to before, excessive fees being absorbed by the lawyers. How do you address that? You address it by

regulating it, by putting forth caps, by having judges supervise the orders.

I also say, and I'm quoting from Mr Justice Dennis O'Connor, who was appointed by the Attorney General, the Honourable Mr Flaherty, who's here today listening to

this -- and I think every member of the House has nothing but admiration for Justice O'Connor. He said this of the concerns regarding contingency fees: "While historically these concerns about the

potential for abuse by lawyers or damage to the lawyer-client relationship were frequently expressed, there is little, if any, evidence to show that the fears were well-founded." He went on to say,

"In addition, we have the benefit of the experiences of the many jurisdictions that have enacted legislation permitting regulated contingency fee agreements. This court was not shown any evidence

to show that lawyers in these jurisdictions, properly regulated, are more likely to engage in the types of abuse to the administration of justice that were once feared to be the result of" these

agreements.

So, yes, there are concerns and, yes, they have been fulfilled to some degree in the United States. But in Canada we've addressed them by putting forth laws and

by putting forth regulations to curb abuse; not only to right wrongs but also to ensure that everybody who's involved in contingency fees knows the way the rules work.

Time is not going to permit me to read the letters I'm very grateful to have received from the Advocates' Society and from the Law Society of Upper Canada in

support of the regulation of contingency fees, nor from the comments of Professor Michael Trebilcock, who has endorsed this private member's bill on contingency fee arrangements.

Rather, I only have time to say this: we have a justice system that is paid for by the taxpayers. We fund the administration of justice in Ontario; it's the

province's responsibility. It is a justice system, on the civil side, that is not accessible to our constituents. And so I say to you that while this is no panacea, this is an opportunity for us to

permit the people of Ontario to redress grievances and injustices in the court where they might not otherwise be able to do so, and I ask for your support.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): It is a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Solicitors Act, which has been

introduced by my good friend from St Paul's. This is an interesting piece of legislation, which certainly provides for excellent discussion.

As the government and the minister have stated, we are not in any way philosophically opposed to the idea of contingency fees. However, there are some concerns

with this particular legislation as presently framed.

In regulating a contingency fee system, the rights of both the public and the legal community must be balanced. According to the proposed legislation,

applications can be made behind closed doors to award a lawyer an amount exceeding the prescribed maximum. I ask, where is the accountability when proceedings like these occur away from public

scrutiny?

Our government is committed to ensuring that all Ontarians have access to our justice system. While we are open to the idea of contingency fees, the reality is

that this legislation raises some significant issues. We must strike a balance. That balance may not exist with the legislation reading as it presently does.

Just as lawyers have a right to be adequately compensated for their services, the public has a right to be able to access the legal system and not face

exorbitant fees. We recognize that contingency fees open the justice system to vulnerable people who might not qualify for legal aid yet cannot retain the services of a lawyer.

These are all important issues, and I look forward to debating them in committee.

A strong, accessible justice system is integral to the functioning of any society. Our government has continued to take great strides in improving access to

justice. It is an issue that is of paramount importance.

We have also taken steps to improve access to justice through reforms of the civil justice system. The Ministry of the Attorney General has worked closely with

the judiciary and the bar to make the civil justice system more streamlined and efficient.

For example, case management, rule 77, and mandatory mediation, rule 24.1, have been successfully implemented in both Toronto and Ottawa and will be expanding to

Windsor effective December 31, 2002. Both these initiatives have helped improve access to justice. A two-year independent evaluation of the mandatory mediation program concluded that mediation has

had a positive impact on the speed, cost and outcomes of litigation.

Another recommendation of the civil justice review, simplified procedure, under rule 76, improves access to justice by reducing the number of pre-trial

procedures in cases involving smaller amounts. This reduces the cost to litigants and the time required to get the matter to trial. The simplified procedure rule first came into effect in 1996 as a

pilot project for cases up to $25,000. Following a positive evaluation, rule 76 became permanent across Ontario in 2001, and the monetary limit was increased to $50,000 as of January 2002.

A discovery review task force, which was appointed by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, is reviewing the discovery

process to identify problems with the current procedure and possible reforms.

This government has continued to demonstrate its commitment to ensuring access to justice. A balanced contingency fee system would be welcomed as part of this

commitment. The key is balance. The system must safeguard the public while ensuring that lawyers are adequately compensated for their services.

The member's legislation is an important bill, and I look forward to the debate in committee.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): From his last comment I'm not sure whether the member is in favour or not, but from his earlier

comments I assume that he is not.

This is an issue that has been talked about within the law society of Ontario, and I would dare say within the general public, for at least the last 30 or 40

years. We are the only province in Canada that doesn't allow contingency fees.

Is the bill perfect? Probably not, and that's why it should go to committee after it receives second reading here. But to suggest that this government has done

things that make it easier for people to have access to justice simply isn't the truth.

The truth of the matter is that anybody who wants to initiate or proceed with a civil action is paying fees much greater than they used to before 1995. To start

a Small Claims Court action is more than a hundred bucks; to file a defence is more than $100; to have any of the intermediate steps costs a lot more money than it ever used to. To suggest this

government has taken actions that have improved people's access to justice just isn't the truth.

Look at what's happened with legal aid. In 1994-95, 20,000 certificates were issued under the Ontario legal aid plan for civil actions, either on the plaintiff

or the defence side. Do you know what happened in 1997, just three years later? That had been reduced to 3,700. In other words, what happened within the legal aid plan is that civil actions have

pretty well dropped off the radar screen. If you want to initiate a civil action, you're on your own. If you haven't got the money, the legal aid plan isn't going to help you.

Let's deal with the reality of the situation. Contingency fees have been in effect in most civil situations in the province for the last 30 or 40 years. I've

practised law for 30 years and have contact with many colleagues, and I darned well know that the fees they charge to somebody involved in a civil action will greatly depend on their success.

Whether we want to somehow not acknowledge that fact here is one thing, but the reality of the situation is that if you get more money, the lawyer charges more. So let's deal with the reality of

that situation, like nine other provinces in this country have.

If there are some aspects of the bill that the member doesn't like, let him bring those aspects to the committee, let him bring in amendments. But the basic

concept promoted in this bill is correct. The law society has been unwilling to deal with this. They've done report after report after report and the bottom line is that they're still not

recommending it. Yes, there are various committees that have recommended it and various reports that are recommending it now, but the bottom line is that the government is not prepared to act on

the request.

In other civil actions, the number of certificates has dropped by something like 80% from 1994 to 1998. One of the problems is that the legal aid system is

simply not accessible to the same extent it was seven or eight years ago, so many people who have legitimate causes are prevented from taking action because they quite simply don't have the

financial resources to promote their particular position.

So I beg this House: since this is a private member's bill, let's have a look at it within the legislative system; let's have a committee look at it. If there

are problems with respect to certain aspects of it, yes, we can deal with them at that point in time by way of amendments. But to simply put your head in the sand and take the position that this is

not an issue out there as far as access to justice is concerned and that this is not an issue for the general public out there that wants to promote its claims, that wants to advance its claims and

simply isn't able to do so because of the financial constraints that are involved, isn't realistic.

Most of the other jurisdictions in Canada have a clause in their legislation that the contingency fees have to be reasonable. If, at the end of the day, someone

doesn't find that they are reasonable -- and remember, they're only charged in situations where the person is successful in their particular claim; in other words, funds are coming to them, rights

are coming to them. If that person feels they're being overcharged, that the contingency aspect of it is too large, that person has a right to go to court under their legislation because of the

reasonable provision aspect in the legislation.

So I say to the members opposite, this is one step to finally deal with an issue that's been around in this province for at least 30 or 40 years that I'm aware

of. Let's move it along. Let's get resolution to it. Let's not once again refer it to the law society. They have done numerous studies on it. Various committees have approved it and then, for

whatever reason, the government didn't want to act on it or the law society as a whole didn't want to act on it. It is time to take action. Let's have some hearings on it after second reading of

the bill. Let's send it to a committee and have some hearings on it, because it all deals with one issue and one issue only: access to justice, which by and large has been denied to those people

who somehow are not able to fund their court actions currently.

I think the legal aid statistics speak for themselves. When you I a 70% or 80% drop in the number of certificates that are being issued in civil actions, it

tells me only one thing, that there are a great number of legitimate claims out there that aren't being prosecuted because of the excessive amount it costs a person to do that.

So I urge all members on this side: let's give this bill second reading and let's send it to committee.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Right off the bat, I support this bill put forth by my friend from St Paul's, and I say "my friend" quite

sincerely. Secondly, I'm not a lawyer. So for those who might be watching these proceedings, if I say anything untoward, not legalistic enough, please forgive me. I'm just a humble teacher, or used

to be.

We've got the former Attorney General here, Mr Flaherty, and I was hoping -- I allowed us to skip a turn just to see whether he would be speaking today. I'm not

quite sure whether he is or he isn't. But I wanted to say to Jim that it was he who requested that an ad hoc committee be struck to study the issue of contingency fees, chaired by OBA member Donald

Kidd, with representatives of the law society and the Advocates' Society. And the committee concluded in September 2000 and said that contingency fees would provide access to justice for

individuals with valid claims.

My concern is, when a minister strikes such a committee -- ad hoc, advisory, what have you -- we do that with an understanding that once they conclude, we're

likely to take the recommendation and do something with it. Well, in this particular instance, this ad hoc group agreed that we should move forward with contingency fees because they would provide

more justice to many, and he refused to accept their recommendation.

I'm not quite sure whether it was he who refused to move on it, whether cabinet discussed this issue or not, whether it simply died when the former Attorney

General didn't act on that recommendation; I'm not quite sure. But why in heaven's name do you strike some ad hoc committees to give you advice that you then refuse to take? This I do not

understand. And that's why I was looking forward to Jim Flaherty, the former Attorney General, to comment on this, because it would shed some light on why the government is resisting this bill that

is in place in all the other provinces, as has been mentioned by all the previous speakers.

We know that it works in practice, that there are no problems we are aware of, those who are advocating for this; in fact, the Insurance Corp of British

Columbia, a public auto insurer, I would add, revealed that in British Columbia, in 86% of the cases, lawyers earn less, the same or slightly more in contingency arrangements than they would on an

hourly fee basis. So that issue ought not to be of concern to the government, based on that particular experience. We assume that's the case in many other parts of Canada.

I'm desperately trying to understand what the objections of this government are to this bill. You understand that this practice was going on illegally here in

the province until Judge O'Connor ruled on this matter. So, yes, it is true that lawyers were making secret arrangements with their clients on a regular basis before Justice O'Connor ruled on this.

And so it would seem to me that the member from Cambridge would want to get this into the open and regulate it so as to avoid the very things that I think he was speaking to earlier on; I'm not

quite sure. But if it is happening illegally, in secret, shadily perhaps, I don't know, wouldn't the member from Cambridge want to take that out of the backrooms and put it out in the open and

regulate it? I would think the member from Cambridge, who is a lawyer, I believe, or was, would understand this a little more than I and say, "Yes, we need transparency. We need regulation in this

field. And, yes, it gives access to so many people who otherwise might not get the justice they deserve."

Vern Krishna, the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, commented that this bill could be of significant benefit to individuals making between $30,000

and $80,000 per year, since those earning more than $30,000 cannot qualify for legal aid.

I say to the member from Cambridge and others who are lawyers in his caucus and those who are interested in this issue: the majority of people are in that

category, making anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000. Those who make more are a small percentage of people, 1% to 10%. The rest of society is anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000 a year. That means we

want to help and protect in some way the majority of Ontarians and give them access to the justice they deserve.

So I don't know what the member from Cambridge was saying. I don't know what this government is saying. I don't know what Jim Flaherty, the former Attorney

General, is saying or has said, whether he's going or whether he'll speak or not, or whether other lawyers will speak to this. I'm not sure. But it is interesting to review aspects of the hypocrisy

of this government where -- you think that's too strong, Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: While I'm up, I might remind you that you are not to use members' names. You may refer to their constituency or their

ministerial position but not their name. Thank you. Would you withdraw?

Mr Marchese: I will withdraw that because the word might be a little bit too strong for the Tories. Speaker, just to remind you, I constantly

refer to "Jim Flaherty, the former Attorney General." I constantly make reference to his title.

The Acting Speaker: We're not going to do this. Withdraw that too and refer only to people's positions. Withdraw?

Mr Marchese: I already did.

The Acting Speaker: The name.

Mr Marchese: Withdraw the name? I withdraw the fact -- the former Attorney General doesn't have a name, therefore he doesn't exist, and I should

never have made reference to him because he only has a title; he doesn't exist in person. That's bad. I've got to tell you, people exist not only in title but in person. Otherwise, they wouldn't be

alive; they wouldn't be here in this place. It's an odd ruling to be making. That's why I usually combine the name and the title, so people know that behind the title there's a name. Yes or no,

legally?

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Yes, of course.

The word I was asked to withdraw which I will not repeat -- but here's the contradiction in terms of the position this government is taking. The Ontario

government is pursuing tobacco litigation on a contingency fee basis with its US legal counsel, but won't back such an agreement here in Ontario. You've got to help me, Speaker. To the person who

doesn't exist, what does this mean? We want to pursue tobacco litigation on a contingency fee basis. That's the government suggesting that, but contingency fees, they say, are wrong in other cases.

You follow? It's a problem.

It isn't just legally difficult to understand. As a matter of common sense -- because even people with common sense can understand this, particularly Tories, who

advance a common sense concept of behaviour. I am waiting for two of the members I mentioned earlier, who do not exist in name but exist in title, to respond to what I'm saying on this

contradiction in particular and why it is that the ad hoc committee that was established by the former Attorney General, who exists, because he's here -- why he didn't listen to their advice. I

need to know from the former Attorney General why he didn't listen to that advice If he can't do this, then I need some other lawyer in this caucus -- because there are a couple of them here today,

at least two -- to stand up and say, "We couldn't do it for the following reasons. Yes, good advice, but we didn't listen to them for the following reasons." Help me and indirectly help those who

are watching this program understand.

"In the decision in McIntyre, Justice O'Connor of the Ontario Court of Appeal encouraged the Ontario Legislature to regulate contingency fees:

" ... I urge the government of Ontario to accept the advise (sic) that it has been given for many years to enact legislation permitting and regulating

contingency fee arrangements in a comprehensive and coordinated manner."

It seems to make sense, like common sense.

"There are obvious advantages to having a regulatory scheme" -- he says, and I agree.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): A regular Tory scheme?

Mr Marchese: Sorry, former banker? "A regulatory scheme." Yes, thanks for helping out.

Mr Sampson: I didn't hear what you said.

Mr Marchese: We need bankers in this place. I've got to tell you, we need them. You need them especially.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Yes, your government needs your advice all the time.

"There are obvious advantages to having a regulatory scheme that is clearly and specifically addressed in a single legislative enactment. There is no reason

why Ontario, like all the other jurisdictions in Canada, should not enact such a scheme." I would not have used the word "scheme" because "scheme" sometimes can be derogatory in its connotation,

but he says "scheme" and it doesn't matter. What he means is an arrangement, a plan, etc. That's good advice from a judge.

Why is it that the former Attorney General isn't advocating for such a scheme? It is now, in his view, legal. It used to be, in the past, illegal. We want to

put it out in the open, give greater transparency to the folks, and regulate. That is a good thing, but not, it seems, for the common-sense-revolutionary types. This is where the contradictions

come together from time to time. They argue on the one hand in one way and argue differently on the other. That to me is incomprehensible.

I've got to say that there are things that we would suggest. We may want to consider demanding that the government provide public education and perhaps even a

helpline whose number wouldn't always be busy -- it would help if the line could be a little more open from time to time; a service to ensure that individuals entering into such arrangements with

their lawyer have access to independent advice about the fairness and reasonableness of such an agreement before entering into it, and information about the regulations governing such

agreements.

I think this is very useful stuff. Often we pass bills and we do not accompany those bills, which may be reasonable, with public education that helps those who

otherwise wouldn't get the help to understand what they're getting into. A whole lot of people never quite know what they're getting into, so even though we would be regulating this practice, we

still argue and feel that those entering into those arrangements ought to be given the information they need to be able to make good judgments as they enter into such contingency fee arrangements.

We think it's good.

I've got to tell you, we never do public education. This is not limited to this government. It happens in all governments where we do not follow through well

enough with public education to help the public understand what we do in this place and what we pass in this place.

I am hoping and assuming that the majority of Tories here present are going to support this bill today. I'm assuming they will and that they will send it to

the committee of justice, in particular, to have this reviewed. We believe there should be full, open, public hearings so that we can ensure that the most vulnerable people are protected, that the

majority of people who would be helped by this bill would have an opportunity to come and speak to this issue and, through their examples and histories, we can get a better sense of what else we

might do to improve on the bill, if necessary. It would give the opportunity to the Tories, New Democrats, Liberals and others, and the majority of people who are interested in this, to come,

debate, discuss, give advice and be critical of the bill if they need to be. That's what we expect.

That's why we support this bill. We think it's a good bill. We want it to go to committee. We hope all the members of this Assembly will support it. I think

that I've had my say on this bill.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I appreciate the opportunity to be able to join in the debate on Bill 178. Certainly, our

government is not philosophically opposed to contingency fee agreements. In fact, we feel that this debate is indeed a very positive step forward in improving access to justice here in the province

of Ontario.

At the same time, we also think it is essential that the proper safeguards be in place to ensure that vulnerable members of the public are protected. We must

also ensure that lawyers are adequately and fairly compensated for their work. This is an important balance that must be achieved through any legislation that regulates the use of contingency fees.

It must be both fair to the public and fair to the lawyers.

As I mentioned, it is our view that access to contingency fees can improve access to justice. Contingency fee agreements could help ensure that no one is left

out of the legal process. They help that segment of society, usually the middle class, that doesn't qualify for legal aid but doesn't have the resources to pay for an expensive legal battle. You

have probably heard of people with strong cases but who could not afford legal services. For these individuals, access to justice is a real problem, not just an abstract issue.

Improving access to justice is a priority of our government. That is why we recently introduced legislation to increase the flexibility that Legal Aid Ontario

has to provide the people of Ontario with modern, accessible legal services.

Improving access to justice also means making sure we have modern court facilities. That is why since 1996 we have committed more than $269 million to build

and renovate court facilities throughout Ontario.

Courthouses are strong symbols of justice. They remind us that the justice system is an essential part of community life. They must also be practical

facilities that ensure the efficient and effective administration of justice. The Ministry of the Attorney General's court operations are located in over 200 facilities across the province. Many of

these facilities require ongoing investment to ensure the public receives the best service possible.

There are courthouses in Ontario that need to be renovated, modernized or even replaced. Over the last six years, new, consolidated courthouses have opened in

Brampton, Cornwall, Hamilton, Welland and Windsor. These consolidated courthouses make justice services convenient and accessible, and utilize courtroom resources efficiently. As a result, the

justice system operates more smoothly, cases are dealt with more quickly and public safety is enhanced.

Other major capital projects are currently under development or underway in the municipalities of Brockville, Chatham, Owen Sound, Pembroke and Toronto. A

Toronto landmark, Osgoode Hall, is in the later stages of a 10-year, multi-million dollar renovation to ensure that it continues to meet user needs well into the future.

Clearly the time has come to consider the use of contingency fees in Ontario. I'm sure all of you are aware of the recent court ruling on this matter. As a

matter of fact, last month the Court of Appeal held that contingency fee agreements are indeed permissible.

Our province is the only jurisdiction in North America that does not currently allow contingency fees for individual claimants; in fact, the province of

Manitoba has permitted them for more than 100 years.

While contingency fees have been linked to increased litigation and higher damage awards in the United States, Canadian jurisdictions have reported few

difficulties. So again I would like to state that as a whole we think contingency fee agreements are a good idea. We just have to ensure that we have regulations in place that protect the public

and allow for fair and adequate compensation of lawyers.

We feel that this is indeed an important issue to debate in committee. I'll certainly be supporting the bill at second reading, and look forward to discussing

some of the issues we have raised when the bill is considered at committee.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm pleased to rise in support of Bill 178, which has been introduced by my colleague and

friend Mr Bryant from St Paul's. I've enjoyed the debate. My sense of the House this morning is that there is a wide range of support for the principle of at least taking a good look at Bill 178,

and certainly I appreciate that.

I want to say a couple of things generally about the legal system. I think Mr Bryant is very, very right to point out, as a number of other members in the

debate this morning have observed, that there is a growing problem with the broad base of the middle class not being able to or not feeling able to access the justice system. I know myself, when I

was involved in a libel action a few years ago, that I got a bit of a wake-up call as to what some of the costs were going to be.

As Mr Bryant has indicated, if you've got a lot of money, no problem; if you qualify for legal aid -- the qualification criteria there have been tightened, as

we all know -- at least there's some relief; but if you are the majority of Ontarians and you have some occasion to need the justice system, particularly on a civil matter, you quickly find out

that it's going to be very expensive, and, as the 1995 report prepared by the civil justice review made plain, the cost of engaging legal services for a lot of middle-class folks is sufficiently

prohibitive that in many cases they don't proceed. So I do think there is a case to look at a creative and acceptable alternative, and certainly contingency fees seem to be one possibility

there.

I think, as Mr Bryant has pointed out, the fact that it's already occurring in this province on an informal, unregulated basis ought to give us some real

pause.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Stop the clock, please.

While I'm up, it's just getting way too noisy in here. Private conversations should be taken outside.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre may want to take his conversations outside.

Mr Conway: I'm particularly pleased that Mr Flaherty and Mr Sampson are here and I really do want their attention just briefly. I want to say

something about an issue in my part of southeastern Ontario, where Mr Sampson's father was a distinguished crown --

The Acting Speaker: I reminded members earlier that using names is not permitted in this place.

Mr Conway: I happen to think this is a good debate and I'd like to participate in some sensible way. I want to make some comments about

Brockville. The legal system in Brockville, in Leeds-Grenville, if anybody has been paying attention -- I know the member from Durham, the former Attorney General, will know some of this.

I went up to the library a few minutes ago and picked up the most recent half dozen issues of the Brockville Recorder and Times, and I'll say to all members of

the Legislature, but particularly anybody with involvement in, experience with and responsibility for the legal or justice system, what's going on in Leeds-Grenville and around the system in

Brockville is absolutely outrageous. The legal aid system has been held up to complete ridicule.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: That's a fair point. I accept that. I know more, perhaps, than most people in here.

But I'm going to tell you, the agents of the Attorney General on this legal aid matter there --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, I say to the former Attorney General that the issue at hand is what has been going on with the legal aid system. We've got

the Attorney General in the Legislature announcing one policy, his agents in the courts in Brockville saying and doing something quite to the contrary and a whole bunch of collateral issues to

which he has made some parenthetical reference that are not helping.

The Brockville Recorder and Times -- the editor, Barry Raison, and the reporter, Jack Walker -- has done an excellent job of highlighting some of the problem

and some of the challenge. We as a provincial government and Legislature don't look very good in the exercise. So if I look at the legal aid system in a place like Brockville -- and it's probably

worse there than in much of the rest of province. I don't know, but it would not give me a lot of confidence. I want to have some confidence, I want the public to be able to look at this justice

system and the legal system that's so important a part of it, and to say, first of all, it's accessible and affordable to all of us on a reasonable basis. And I want to know that some of the other

entitlement programs around it, whether it's the correctional system or the legal aid system or the panoply that my friend from St Paul's and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade would

know better than I, are also to a reasonable extent working with some effect and credibility.

You cannot read the last six weeks of the Brockville Recorder and Times and honestly conclude that it's a system of very much credibility or legitimacy. The

Ontario government is not entirely responsible, let me make it clear, for some of the problems, but we have a considerable measure of responsibility for them. Just like the previous speaker talking

about all the good work that's going on with courthouse renewal -- and it's true there is a lot of good work that is going on with courthouse renewal. We are trying to build a new provincial

courthouse in Pembroke, and it appears to be an Olympian task.

Not all of the problems reside with the provincial government, and I accept that. But if I'm a taxpayer in Renfrew county watching Her Majesty's provincial

government trying to build a courthouse in the city of Pembroke, I would think it must be beyond human possibility: seven years and I don't know how many person-hours. Good work being done by the

current Attorney General, the former Minister of Corrections and people locally. All I know, however, as a local citizen, and I won't tell you

chapter and verse of the local bar; the Renfrew county

bar really does think we are incapable of building a courthouse. It doesn't matter whether they're Liberal, Tory or independent lawyers; they've pretty well all come to that conclusion.

I hope in the remaining months of my tenure I'm going to be able to say it is not beyond the possibility of a provincial government in the early days of the

21st century to do what we seem to have been able to do with some alacrity in the middle of the 19th century in county towns like Pembroke: namely, build a rather elegant and stylish courthouse,

one that is functional and meets the needs of 2002, as opposed to 1867.

I say in conclusion, there is a need to look at the issues raised by my friend's Bill 178. Are contingency fees the only answer? I suspect not. But as a

citizen with very limited experience here, I would say this: if these contingency fees now are the order of the day in all the other Canadian provinces, if they are the order of the day in most

other jurisdictions in the developed world and certainly in North America, at least, and if in fact it's being done here on an informal, unregulated basis in Ontario, we'd better move on to

recognizing that reality and at least regulating it in some sensible way. I would hope there would be a good committee hearing of people who know this issue much better than I in this Legislature

to see how we can move this forward. And I'll say again to my friends, the members from Mississauga and Durham, that situation around legal aid and other justice issues in Brockville,

Leeds-Grenville, bears some very serious scrutiny, because regular people must be looking at that and saying, "My goodness, what on earth is going on?"

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for St Paul's has up to two minutes to reply.

Mr Bryant: I'd like to thank the members for Kingston and the Islands, Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Trinity-Spadina, Cambridge, and

Northumberland for their comments.

It seems clear that there is a great desire for this bill to be scrutinized at the committee stage, and I could not agree more. In the event that the bill does

get the support of the House, I'll be seeking that the bill go off to the justice and social policy committee.

I've heard the concerns with respect to setting caps and legal fees by regulation versus by statute. I think that those concerns, obviously, can be addressed

at the committee stage and by amendments before the bill reaches third reading. We are here debating the bill at second reading, which means we are debating the principle of the bill.

I appreciate the support that I have heard in this House. I've listened to the questions that have been raised and I want to say this: we have right now in the

province of Ontario lawyers entering into informal contingency fee agreements with clients. Up until recently they were perceived to be contrary to the common law. Now we know, according to Mr

Justice Dennis O'Connor, that they are legal. So we have it happening. We have these agreements taking place. We know that it is legal.

The Attorney General took the position before the Court of Appeal that contingency fee agreements ought not to be regulated ultimately by the courts but ought

to be regulated ultimately by the Legislature. And here we are in the Legislature. I know that none of us wants to read in the newspaper one day a sad story of somebody who had been abused by an

unregulated legal system on contingency fee agreements. Today is our opportunity to make sure that never happens and I'm asking for the House's support in that regard.

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

COLLISION REPAIR

STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION

EN CAS DE COLLISION

Mr Sampson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to further highway safety and establish consumer protection through the regulation of the collision repair industry, and to make a

complementary amendment to the Insurance Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité sur les voies publiques et à protéger les consommateurs en

réglementant le secteur de la réparation en cas de collision et à apporter une modification complémentaire à la

Loi sur les assurances.

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

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): Before I get too far on in my 10 minutes, I want to thank various members of the collision repair

industry who have come here today to witness our business this morning and to provide some support for the initiative that we have before the House. I also want to thank the member for Oak Ridges,

who actually started this project, if you will, with me in about 1995 or 1996 when we collectively came to the conclusion that in order to help with some components of the auto insurance issues I

was dealing with at that time we should take a look at bettering the environment under which people go to get their cars repaired. The member for Oak Ridges spent a number of hours consulting with

the numerous stakeholders in this particular subject and came forward with some recommendations and proposals that, through subsequent discussions and negotiations, stand in the form of the bill

that we're debating here today, the bill that stood in his name before he was elevated to cabinet just last week.

In the short time I have here, I think it's important for me to try to explain -- and I know the member for Oak Ridges will do what he can to pick up where I

have missed. Where we are now is that Ontarians are faced with a repair industry that for the large

part is comprised of good operators such as we have here in this House in the galleries today:

good, hard-working men and women who are making an honest living out of repairing vehicles that have been damaged, either through an accident, theft or whatever, or vehicles that just need repair

because that's the way vehicles are these days. Every once in a while you do need to repair things, whether it was an accident or not.

The problem, of course, lies in that there are those in the industry who choose not to honour good business practices, good training practices, good customer

relations practices that the good operators do. As a result of that, they tend to poison the relationship that these fine people have with their customers, and that's wrong.

There are rules and regulations that are scattered among the various legislative books in this province, the various

laws in this province, that deal with things these fine men and women must honour when they do their jobs -- pollution control initiatives by MOE, training initiatives etc. But the challenge has

been that there are no consistent standards which all operators within the collision repair industry need to meet or exceed in order to do business here in Ontario.

As a result of that, some insurance companies -- not all, but some -- who are the first payers, if you will, of the bills of these individuals, have initiated

on their own behalf, rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly, programs to "certify" various members in the industry to do business for their -- the insurance companies' -- customers when

claims are made, which sounds like a good initiative. The problem with that, of course, is that the standards by which these individual insurance companies certify these various shops to do

business are themselves inconsistent to the point that some people who are still performing what I think the average and reasonable person would deem to be inappropriate business practices, get

into that group.

In the sports analogy, there's not a level playing field for the men and women who are investing their own personal cash and their own sweat and equity in

these various businesses. There's not a level playing field for competition among the various groups, and that's problematic. Why? It's because they are competing against people who may be breaking

certain components of provincial legislation or maybe just demonstrating bad business practices, and that tends to bring down the quality, the performance and the public acceptance of that industry

in general. It's the bad apples who have spoiled the basket.

The bill we have before us attempts to deal with at least establishing minimum standards on performance, training for staff who are working, business

practices, invoicing, the type of equipment being used, which will apply to everybody who's playing in this business and maybe drawing in other provincial pieces of legislation so that encapsulated

in one regulatory framework will be these minimum standards which anybody who chooses to repair automobiles in this province must adhere to.

By the way, this is not a novel concept. This Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has done that in a number of other professional areas: lawyers, people who

sell stocks and bonds, doctors, physiotherapists, optometrists, you name it. Most of the people who provide very important services to Ontarians have to meet some sort of regulatory environment in

order to do that business in this province, and there's some sort of a regulatory council. In many cases it's governed by the members themselves; in some cases it's the members and consumers; in

some cases it's the members, consumers and other groups. This bill proposes one, but that could change if this House so chooses. A regulatory council will certify the practitioner or lawyer or

broker or insurance broker, or decertify if it's deemed that their particular business practice is not meeting these minimum standards.

This bill is very simple. It simply establishes a framework under which this regulation -- you can call it self-regulation if you choose -- will happen. In

fact, the regulations and business practices and rules of the game, if you will, will be those that have been recommended by this advisory group to the government through a ministry -- I'm

recommending one in this particular bill, but I'm open to others, if that's the choice -- and those rules deemed appropriate by government will be the minimum playing field rules that will apply to

anybody who's operating in this business, in the hope that those who choose not to do it that way will eventually be weeded out -- that's good -- but frankly in the hope that Ontarians and those

who are using the service and those who are in the business themselves can have pride and confidence, and some faith, in what these individuals do to their vehicles.

It's a consumer protection initiative as well, because one needs to realize that after a car is involved in a serious accident and gets repaired at these

shops, it's back out on the street again. It's that car next to you as you look out the window. It's the car ahead of you with the brake lights on. It's the car behind you that's having to stop

because you had to put your brakes on quickly. These vehicles are around you, and you need to have confidence that the work that has been done to return them to the road after an accident has been

done safely and effectively and, since you're eventually paying the bill, efficiently. These are the standards under which I hope this House considers Bill 186.

We need to have some confidence in this industry. These men and women who are sitting here today need to have some confidence in their industry. Those of you

who are paying the bills, the insurance company premiums, the repair bills that come before you because you've chosen not to go through the insurance company, you need to have some confidence that

that bill is a fair bill, that the work has been done by people who are qualified to do it, and you can get in the car and safely drive it again.

I encourage the House to favourably consider this piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I am pleased to rise and support Bill 186, the Collision Repair Standards Act. I think it's critical that an

industry that is so important to the driving public, and that's a vast majority of the citizens of Ontario, have some sort of minimum standards, some sort of level playing field. Having said that,

I have some real concerns about the bill, which I hope will be addressed when it goes to committee, if it goes to committee, and I hope that this House will see fit to send it to that

committee.

My concern is that -- and as a former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and a minister responsible for consumer protection -- there seems to be an

unlevel playing field when in fact the whole premise of this bill is to have a level playing field.

As a member who is now in his 18th year in this Legislature, over the years I've had many, many calls and complaints from people who have had difficulties with

things related to automobile repairs, but not specifically. They have problems with the insurance companies; they have problems with the towing companies; they have problems with the repair

companies. And there is a link. You can't separate any of those parts, because the first point of contact after an accident is the tow truck operator. He comes to the scene. The driver is in a

traumatic state, may be injured, whatever it is, depending on the severity of the accident, and suddenly has to make a decision. And all of you know that the tow truck operators descend like

vultures. They monitor the police reports. There's an accident and suddenly there are six trucks lined up to try to grab this car. When they do that and they say to the driver, "We're going to take

this car to this particular place," unless the driver is really calm and settled down and says, "Well, I don't know about that," they'll say, "Fine, go ahead and do it."

I just had a recent case, to give an example, where that exact thing happened. The vehicle was taken to a repair service. The insurance company said, "They're

not on our preferred list. We will not honour that claim. We've got to take it to someone that we want to take it to." The repair company that had it said, "There's no way. We have the car. We've

already started. You're going to have to pay us or we're not going to release the car." My constituent had to wait a week to get their car out of that garage. That really isn't right.

It's critical -- and I applaud the minister, who is the member who introduced this private member's bill -- that there be a level playing field. The critical

part about it -- and I hope it doesn't get diluted once we get into discussions -- is that it is the consumer's choice as to where that car goes, not the tow truck driver's choice, not the

insurance company's choice. It is the consumer's choice. They will decide where that car goes, with the proviso -- and that's what this bill provides -- that every automobile repair shop in Ontario

will have to be certified. If they're certified, then everybody has to buy into the fact they are certified and, as a result, there can't be any manipulation as to where that car goes.

It would seem to me that if that can be assured, then I don't have a problem. We have to make sure the certification is there, that the shops that are

certified have got adequately trained mechanics, body repairmen, people who have to deal with the mechanical aspects of it, including the repair part of it, and everybody has a level of

satisfaction that in fact their car is going to be professionally repaired, is going to meet all of the safety standards, is not going to provide problems down the road and is not going to be a

hazard to the driver or to anyone else. If we can get that, I think it's great. I have no problem with that.

The situation when we go to the actual bill gives me some concerns. Let me just tell you what those concerns are. The act provides that there be an advisory

board. The advisory board is to be made up: "four shall be persons who work in the collision repair industry; three shall be persons who work in the automobile insurance industry; and two shall be

persons who do not work in either the collision repair or the automobile insurance industry, and who are not employees of the Ontario public service."

That's a nine-member board and it seems to be representative, but again I think that somewhere along the line we've got to bring in that other component. We've

got to bring in responsible people in the towing industry so that they can buy into this process. If they're not at the table, they're not going to feel they're part of it and there's not going to

be that ability to get a buy-in so that they can clean up their act. It would seem to me that that should happen.

The other problem I have is that, further along in the proposed act, they talk about "delegation." In the delegation, after I've just outlined to you the

composition of that advisory board, you then put in what I consider to be a hook. You're talking about delegation and you say, "The advisory board may, subject to any conditions it sees fit" --

talk about opening up the door. You're saying the advisory board, no matter what they think of, what they want to do, are allowed to delegate any of their "responsibilities under subsection

(1)."

What can they do? Here you've gone to this great effort to make sure the advisory board is represented by the stakeholders, and I'm not talking about the

drivers but in the industry. Then you're saying they can change that any way they want to, subject to any conditions it sees fit and they can delegate it to "one of its members." You can take

whatever responsibility, and instead of making sure there's a quorum, making sure there is fair representation of all of the stakeholders, you suddenly find that they can delegate it to one

member.

They can also delegate it to a committee of members. I have no problem with that as long as there are provisions for a minimum number of members to constitute

that committee.

The next provision really puzzles me. In the original structure of the advisory board it specifically provides that "two shall be persons who do not work in

either the collision repair or the automobile insurance industry, and who are not employees of the Ontario public service." Then we have, in "Delegation," that it can be delegated to "one or more

employees of the ministry over which the minister presides." A couple of pages before, you specifically exclude them, and then, in the next couple of pages you provide that it can be delegated to

them. We have a problem. It doesn't seem to make any sense. You say, "We don't want to have the government or public service employees involved," but then there is this delegation provision where

they in fact can be. I have some very serious concerns about that.

When we get down to it, this is really a consumer protection act. I agree with the member. I give the industry the benefit of the doubt. The vast majority of

the people out there are honourable, they're businessmen trying to do the best for their clients and themselves to make sure they're viable and can be competitive, and that there's a fair

marketplace where they can get a fair return on their investment, on their equipment, and can prosper.

We have the insurance companies. Again, I used to regulate them. Most of them are honourable companies. I'm telling you, there's nothing more satisfying to a

driver who has an accident: he calls the insurance company and gets a claims adjuster, they handle it smoothly, fairly and send you on your way, and you say, "Wow, I've got a great insurance

company. They're going to see that my car gets repaired and get me back on the road. They'll provide me with another car, if need be. They will do all of these things, and that's great."

Then you have the tow truck operators. Some of them are great and efficient, and they do the job and take you where you want to go. That's fine. But the reason

we need regulation is for that small number of so-called bad apples. They're the ones who are not playing by the rules. They're the ones we've got to bring in the regulations to try and get rid of,

quite frankly. We want them out of the business. If it's the insurance company, the tow truck operator or the repair shop, we want them out, because it gives everybody else a bad name. We want to

make sure we can protect the consumer and protect the businessmen, the people who are in the repair shop business -- this is their livelihood. As they say, they have made substantial investments in

time and training. We want to make sure they're protected. We want to make sure that citizens get fair treatment from their insurance companies and from the companies that are towing their vehicles

to start the repair process.

I think it's important that the regulations in the act address all those areas. I feel that at the present time it doesn't quite meet that standard. We will be

supporting the bill, because the intent is good. It's a start, but there are some whole areas in this that have not been addressed that should be addressed. It's critical that we come up with

something that does the job that people think it is doing and not paper over and just give us the impression that something is being done.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm very pleased to be here this morning in the very unusual circumstance of actually saying it will

probably be unanimous today, that we will support an initiative, a bill coming forward, from a member of the government side. In my seven years across from these folks, this is the first time I can

remember that I've actually been able to support anything they've brought forward.

This bill addresses a number of fundamental issues that are of concern to me, certainly of concern to my caucus and obviously to the member for York Centre and

the Liberal caucus. It speaks about freedom in the marketplace, it speaks about protection for small businesses, it speaks about moving to protect workers in a very important industry where there

are some concerns and it also speaks about protection of the consumers' interests in this instance.

However, I do have some thoughts to put on the record here because we have some concerns, even though we are supporting

it. Our concerns are tied into very much the pattern, the track record of this government to, in almost all instances, prefer and shower benefit on the larger business interests that operate in

Ontario, in this case the insurance industry, which is very powerful and controls in many insidious ways almost every aspect of the business that they are either directly or indirectly connected

to.

So we need to be making sure in this bill that there are ways we can ensure that even after this bill is passed -- because there are opportunities available in

this bill, if you read it and as it rolls out, for this government to do as it has done so many times in its tenure here: on one hand to say, "Yes, we want to do this," but then when it actually

comes down to it and given the opportunity to once again shower favour on those who contribute more generously to their coffers in terms of their need for money to run elections, we find that they

do that which is not in the best interests of the smaller business interests, the worker in those industries and the consumer.

My concern here is, I think, well-founded and it goes a little bit further than the member for York Centre has elaborated so eloquently in terms of the concern

re the advisory panel and then cutting out the bureaucracy and then bringing them in again. My concern is the control that the minister ultimately has over this and that anything the advisory panel

decides must be delivered to the minister, who then will decide how that actually plays out in the legislation and in the determination and the putting together of regulations.

I give you, for example, for your perusal the instance of this government bringing in legislation and regulation to govern the delivery of services to seniors

in our province under community care access. They put a whole series of regulations into a framework of legislation that was to be the framework within which that particular piece of public

business would roll out. In a short time they found that it didn't suit their particular approach, it wasn't supportive of their need to manage more closely or spend less money in that sector, to

bring in the private sector in a more direct and obvious manner, so they brought in other legislation which was, as my own colleagues would suggest, and Liberal colleagues that I've spoken to,

rather a hostile takeover of that particular piece of public business, which changed the flavour, the tone and the very direction of that legislation in a very major and immediate way.

My concern in this instance is, looking at the bill and the power the minister has in taking into account the counsel given by the advisory panel, that maybe

initially there will be an attempt, because this government wants to curry favour with a broader cross-section of this province as it moves toward an election -- that there is in this the ability

at some point, if not immediately, certainly down the line, for the minister to come back and begin to do things that would once again favour the bigger, corporate interests at the expense of the

small business operator in every one of our communities across this province. I have to say that concerns me.

So I will be supporting the request that the member for York Centre made a few minutes ago to make sure this bill goes to committee, so that in that venue we

can all insist on the government making sure there is provision in this bill to make sure that that in fact isn't what happens in the long run, because our concern in this whole piece is that we

wrestle away from those bigger interests, particularly the insurance companies, the control and power they have right now to dictate where it is that vehicles that are in accidents go for repair

and who it is they will pay, because we know that behind the scenes there are other deals happening. There's money being paid that many small businesses cannot afford to pay in order to be a player

in that market, and that concerns me.

It concerns me because I've done some work over the last five years in the area of franchising where I discovered, to my great chagrin -- in my community I

thought there were numerous small businesses, independent, in control of their own future, and if they made the investment, if they worked hard and lived up to the spirit of the product they were

trying to deliver to my constituents, and they were good businesspeople, lived according to the law, that they could and would be successful, when in fact I discovered that there were so many

controls and other manners of influence at play in most of the franchising operations that I had the pleasure of sitting down with and talking to, that many of them, even with their best effort,

could never be successful or, at the very least, as successful as they hoped they would be. Having made the investment, having done the very hard work, having brought their expertise to the

particular company and done all the right things, their ability to be successful was capped.

Even with the greatest of interest and commitment, participation and contribution, they were being controlled by bigger interests. There were deals being cut

at another level by some of the big distribution systems. For example, some of the grocery chains -- the very limited number of large grocery chains -- that are out there right now delivering food

products to our communities precluded many of the small businesses, franchisers in my community, ever either being successful or being successful in the way that the contribution they've made

indicates they should have opportunity to be.

It's the same dynamic at play, I believe, in much of the repair industry of vehicles when accidents happen. We needed to bring in some regulation to somehow

make the marketplace in Ontario free again, because the priority of the large corporate sector is not the same priority, sad to say, of those small business people who live in places like Sault Ste

Marie, Sudbury, Blind River, Wawa and all of those communities across this province. We have to be careful here because we know from their track record that this government in fact is friendlier

with the larger corporate entity than they are with individual small businesses in communities across this province.

We have some concerns, even though we agree that this is a good first step and that the member for Mississauga South, carrying a piece of legislation that was

first introduced by the member from Oak Ridges, is wanting to do the right thing here. We just want to make sure in our capacity as critic to this government that in the long run it does become and

continues to be the right thing, that there are no loopholes or end runs that can happen here that would take us back to the circumstance we're in today.

The other issue we have some concern with, and it's why we want this bill to go to committee, is that we want to make sure the price of entry, the conditions

that are imposed by the advisory committee and ultimately the minister, yes, in partnership or in cahoots with the larger corporate interest, might be put in place that would make the price of

entrance into the industry itself so high -- for example, the cost of equipment. You could set an artificial level for the investment that a small business person needs to make in a company so high

that nobody could get in, or that they wouldn't qualify for the standard that is being set in this legislation and therefore wouldn't be able to take advantage of some of the business that was

potentially coming their way. That concerns us as well.

It concerns us that there continues to be some control on the advisory committee as it makes recommendations to the minister that they not bring forward -- the

advisory committee which can be changed by the government whenever it feels that it's not suiting their purpose, as we've seen in the instance of community care access centres where we had a

hostile takeover. I was just looking yesterday at the list of replacements on those organizations that have happened in the last year; it's unbelievable. The government brought in people more

sympathetic to their particular approach to that piece of public business so they then could have their way.

That could happen here too unless we're allowed in committee, Liberal, New Democrat and Conservative caucus, to have a very honest and frank discussion about

this so that at the end of the day the recommendations and the regulations put in place preclude that, don't allow that to happen, so the standards that are put in place are in fact supportive of

the very legitimate and hard-working small business people across this province who invest, in some instances their life savings, in this business so that they can make a living, support their

families and look forward to retirement based on the profit they will generate in that business.

I realize from discussions we've had, that our research department has had with many of the small businesses in this sector across the province, that you are

in favour of this bill. But I would invite you to work with us to make sure this piece of legislation goes before committee so that we can in fact put in place those things that are necessary to

protect us from some of the possibilities I've just laid out for you this morning that could indeed happen, and have indeed happened, under this government as they are attracted to or persuaded or

cajoled into, once again, showering benefit or favour on those big corporate interests that put so much money into their election campaign machine. We know that it has happened, we know it

continues to happen and we know it will happen again.

So we are supporting the small businesses who are here this morning in their very real and genuine concern for their small businesses, for their colleagues in

this business. We congratulate the members for Oak Ridges and Mississauga South for bringing it forward. On a more personal basis, I was disappointed that last year when I brought a small bill

forward to suggest that this government might want to give to people in the province living with disabilities a very modest increase in their income, they almost unanimously voted against it, and

that was unfortunate. Even the two members who are bringing this bill forward to protect the interests of small business across this province, which I believe is the right thing to do, couldn't

find it in their hearts to protect the interests of those in our province who are living with disabilities and have fallen some $7,000 to $8,000 below the poverty line in terms of their income and

their ability to look after themselves. So if that attitude prevails where this bill is concerned, we're in difficulty. But if we bring it to committee and we all have a chance to give our input,

if at the end of the day that's reflected in the bill and the legislation, I think we'll have something worthwhile here and we will support it.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): First of all I want to thank the member for Mississauga Centre for agreeing to take up

the cause on this bill. I also want to thank him for the number of hours he has spent with me over the last six years, approximately, working on this issue. I also want to thank members of the

industry, many of whom are represented here in the galleries. I appreciate your being here and your support. I have to tell you, Speaker, that I have come to respect highly the men and women in

this industry because. to a large degree they represent entrepreneurialism in this province. They represent individuals who are willing to risk their own dollars in terms of investment in

businesses, have done so and work hard to deliver a very essential service to consumers in this province.

I want to thank members of the House because, without their unanimous consent this past week, we would not have been able to debate this bill today, simply

because when I was asked to take on responsibility as minister, of course, my bill would have gone into the black hole, so to speak. So I appreciate the unanimous support of members of this House

to allow us to debate this today.

I want to acknowledge that this process over the last six years has been a tremendous learning experience for me. It has been frustrating; it has yet at the

same time been incredibly rewarding. This issue was first brought to me by a constituent. I had no idea, other than my personal frustrating experiences with collision repair, which I've had a few

-- none my fault, I might tell members of the House. But I had no personal experience with this industry in terms of what actually happens on the ground and what some of the background issues are.

A constituent came to my office about six years ago and told me some of the issues around this industry. It was at that point in time that I said, "If what I hear is true, we have a responsibility

as legislators to do something about it." So we started down that path.

It started with consultations with the industry, and there were representations from the towing industry, I say to the member for York Centre as well. He

raises a very important point, because there is a continuum of service here that involves not only tow truck operators but appraisers and people in the collision repair industry and the insurance

industry. I agree that we have to somehow be able to deal with that on a seamless basis to ensure that everyone is treated fairly. But we went through that process of consultation, and the more I

heard from people in the industry, the more I became convinced that this is an issue that we, as a Legislature, must address. It ranged from an issue of fairness in business practices that affect,

yes, insurance companies and how they deal with repair shops; it dealt with how repair shops relate to each other in terms of the issue of a level playing field in doing business; it had to do to a

large degree with the issue of consumer safety.

When I heard how there were actually repairs being done across this province today, and some are being done as we speak, that should not allow that car in its

newly repaired condition to be back on the road because the minute there was any kind of a serious collision the lives of the people in that car would be at risk, something is very wrong. The fact

that there is no province-wide standard in place today was a shock to me. I feel that we, as legislators, have a responsibility to act and to do this in the interests not only of the industry

that's represented here today but, equally as important, in the interests of consumers who expect that we, as government, will take these initiatives on their behalf.

So before us we have a bill that I will admit is not perfect, and I thank members opposite who are saying, "Let's move this into committee," because that

certainly would have been our intent and request as well. As I've explained to people in the industry, the process here is that we now take this bill that we agree to in principle -- we agree

something has to be done -- and let's get input from the industry at that point. I'm sure there are some nuances that we have yet to consider here, certainly with the experiences of members

opposite, and as a former minister of consumer affairs, we welcome Mr Kwinter's input on this as well, and members of the third party. It's at that stage in committee that we expect there will be

some amendments proposed that we will accept to this bill so that we can then put it into a form where it will serve the industry as well as the consumers in this province well.

With regard to some of the comments that have been made relating to the composition of the council, the composition of the board, if you will, the advisory

council, I'm open to that as well. Again, let's have a look at that. In terms of the committee process, we will certainly want to do everything possible to make sure that this does the job that we

intended it to do.

On the issue of the gatekeeper for this, I agree with the member from Sault Ste Marie. I think it's important that we not put up barriers here that prevent

small businesses with low cash flow to become part of this process. I think some of that was actually addressed in the course of our consultation with the industry. There are ways that the industry

has of dealing with that. So we want to ensure that all of those issues are taken into consideration.

I know some of my other colleagues want to speak to this as well. I would have loved to take another hour on this, because so much has happened over the last

number of years as I've dealt with this.

Let me just close my remarks by saying that for me this has been an encouraging, although, as I mentioned earlier, often frustrating process, because what it

has shown is that one individual in a community can bring an issue to a member's attention and that that concern expressed can actually end up on the floor of the Legislature with legislation being

introduced, debated, refined and ultimately then brought into force as law, which I hope -- and I'm optimistic, with the expressions I hear today -- will happen.

We hear so much about the parliamentary process and the lack of authority or the lack of influence that backbenchers may have or even cabinet ministers may

have, indeed. I think this is a good day for Ontario. It's a great day for this Legislature when we see this kind of co-operation and this kind of progress being made.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Just a couple of points in my three minutes of time. Let me say that I do commend the member from Mississauga

Centre for bringing this to the House. Yes indeed, it deserves all our support. Send it on to the committee and hopefully ask the -- congratulations, by the way, to the new minister from Oak

Ridges, Frank Klees, on his new position -- that it indeed comes to the House with some amendments coming from this side of the House as well, amendments that I believe will be not only important

but necessary. This is an excellent step. I commend the member for bringing this to the House.

But just quickly two points that I believe the member must address before this bill comes back to the House: one, I have a collision reporting centre in my

area. In the same location we have insurance companies, company or companies, where they tell people, "You want this fixed, you've got to take it to such-and-such a shop." This goes for choice. I

hope the minister is listening. This goes for choice to the consumer. I don't believe it is fair that we have insurance companies in a reporting centre saying to the client, "You want your car

repaired," or truck, whatever, "you've got to take it to such-and-such a place." That is not a choice.

Regulatory body? Yes. But unless ultimately we attach some concrete, some solid control, this will become nothing more than another piece of red tape

legislation, and who wants more red tape legislation? We want real protection for consumers. So I think this is a good step.

One important point that I want to address in the House -- and I'm glad the minister is here; the member for Mississauga Centre is here as well -- is this: a

constituent of mine purchased a car from a car dealership, was involved in an accident, was sent back to the same dealership and the car was fixed. Then the client said, "Well, you know what? The

car is three years old. I want to buy a new one. I like the make. I want to buy a new car." Same dealer. Same agent. He says, "OK. Well, your car is worth so much, if you want to trade it on the

market." Well, from $20,000 the value came down to $16,000 because the car was involved in an accident. Why is that? That is one area that must be addressed and this may be a good starting point to

ensure that loopholes like this will be closed, that consumers will be really protected. If the car has been repaired to perfection, as it should be, then there is no reason why that car owner

shouldn't get the market value, whatever that car may bear. Why should they be penalized because the car has been involved in an accident? They don't tell you that it's major or minor; the car has

been involved in an accident.

So I hope that all of this will come out in the public hearings. I hope that the government will accept those amendments and we can --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Interjection.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Thank you, I say to the member for Mississauga Centre.

I'm very happy to stand here and speak in support of this legislation. I won't tell you that I don't have some minor reservations; I do, but they of course

would be addressed in committee. I congratulate both the member for Oak Ridges and the member for Mississauga Centre for bringing this forward.

The purpose behind this bill is to enhance public safety and that is what's most important. It will also establish province-wide standards. That's important.

If I was either the member for Oak Ridges or the member for Mississauga Centre I would have some concerns that the midnight operators who have been operating willy-nilly for the last number of

years might be in town torching their houses right now, but that's beside the point.

I would like to address the fact, first of all, by saying I was in the insurance business for some 35 years. I've had a relationship with the body shops, the

repair shops and repair facilities around this province and 99% of them are absolutely excellent facilities. A few are not and those few are the ones that need to be legislated. Those are the ones

that need to be regulated, and regulated severely.

Saying that and saying that standards are necessary, that is not to say that body shops and repair facilities that use non-OEM equipment should be considered

not certified. I don't believe that. I believe that non-OEM equipment is definitely acceptable. We've had presentations recently to the auto insurance committee to the effect that OEM equipment

should be the standard. I'm sorry, I don't accept that. I've had too much experience; I would have to say that non-OEM equipment is used -- we know it's used -- by the original manufacturers. So I

would say that any shop that uses non-OEM equipment could be certified.

However, that being said, we have to ensure that standards are in place to ensure that repair facilities are actually doing the work that they say they're

doing and they are putting on the parts they say they are putting on that vehicle. We don't want a vehicle that shouldn't be repaired, however, to be on the road. Again, it's only a small minority,

a very tiny minority, of shops that are responsible for that happening.

In the bill there is a proposal to amend the Insurance Act to say that the shop must perform a repair at a price that is competitive with that charged by

another certified collision repair shop. Provided that the member for Mississauga Centre is amenable to this, I would like to see that changed. I would like to see the words "competitive with"

changed to "no greater than." I do believe very strongly that "competitive with" could mean a 10% overcharge. I happen to believe that the people of this province want their insurance rates as low

as possible. If we start allowing a 10% leverage in charges at body shops, that would affect insurance rates and I think the people of this province would object.

Looking at some of the exceptions which would apply in the bill, I'd have to go along with them. Let's go to subsection (1) first of all.

"Payments only for certified collision repair shops

"263.2

(1) Despite the terms of any policy, an insurer may not make a payment for the repair of damage to an automobile due to a collision, unless the repair

is performed at a certified collision repair shop within the meaning of the Collision Repair Standards Act, 2002." Under the exceptions to that, "Repair of damage that takes place outside of

Ontario": I think that's quite acceptable. Everybody understands that easily enough. If Monte Kwinter is in Ohio and he has a repair that is necessitated from an accident, obviously he's not going

to be asked to bring the automobile back to a certified shop in Ontario and have the repairs completed here.

The second one addresses many people's concerns: "Situations where there is no certified collision repair shop within the immediate geographic area." In many

rural areas, in northern parts of the province, there may only be one repair shop and that repair shop may have no interest in becoming certified, but there may not be another repair shop within

100 miles. Obviously the bill would not apply in those cases.

"Repair of damage to equipment that is not part of the structure or body ... including, without being limited to, electronic entertainment equipment": I think

we all know of too many cases where there might be a $1,500 automobile that happens to have $5,000 worth of electronic entertainment equipment in it. We can't expect a certified shop to conduct

repairs on that equipment. It would be totally illogical and unfeasible for us to expect a repair shop to carry out those repairs. That's going to be done by an uncertified repair facility.

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

Mr Sampson: I want to thank members of the House for their contributions and their good suggestions this morning. Of course, should the House

decide to carry this piece of legislation when the vote comes, we would be more than happy to see it come before committee to consider the suggestions you've raised and any other suggestions you

might have. I would encourage members to get those items to me so that we can consider them in a full and open hearing process to better this bill. I would be the first one to say it's not perfect.

It probably won't even be perfect after we've considered all the regulations and amendments since none of us ever come up with perfect legislation, but I am prepared to work with you to try to find

ways to better it.

Second, on the item of price of entry: I think the point the member from Sault Ste Marie was getting at is that we certainly don't want to disqualify the

ma-and-pa shops, if you will, from doing legitimate business in this province. That is not, I would say to this Legislature, the intent of this bill. In fact, it's the actual reverse and opposite

of that: that hopefully, through these regulations and standards, those individuals will have more access to providing this type of business than they currently do.

The item of whether the consumer has a choice of where to go is an interesting one. It's a valid one because this legislation doesn't propose to change that.

That's dictated by the Insurance Act, which quite clearly is now saying that the consumer's choice is the consumer's choice. This legislation will effectively say and only limit that choice to

those people who are certified to do that business. I believe that's the core of this bill. It's the core of the agreement I heard in this Legislature, and I look forward to further discussion of

this in committee.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for discussion of this ballot item.

At 12 o'clock noon I will place the questions regarding the two ballot items this morning.

Mr Sampson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker -- you can't take it now? It's in recess?

The Acting Speaker: I'm afraid we can't take points of order at this point.

The House recessed from 1155 to 1200.

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT ACT

(CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROCUREURS

(ENTENTES SUR DES

HONORAIRES CONDITIONNELS)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I will now deal with ballot item number 59.

Mr Bryant has moved second reading of Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Solicitors Act to permit and to regulate contingency fee agreements. Is it the pleasure of

the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to the standing orders of the House, this bill be --

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I move that the bill be referred to the justice and social policy committee.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bryant has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social issues. Agreed? Agreed.

COLLISION REPAIR

STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION

EN CAS DE COLLISION.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 60.

Mr Sampson has moved second reading of Bill 186,

An Act to further highway safety and establish consumer protection through the regulation of the collision

repair industry, and to make a complementary amendment to the Insurance Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): I believe the finance committee is going to welcome this bill with open arms. I'd like to refer it to

finance.

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

All matters pertaining to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): It's all about ethics and integrity, and it's clear the Ernie Eves government seems to lack

both.

They don't have money for our seniors and those in need, but they certainly have it for themselves and their friends. They froze budgets for home care and

refused to release the money committed four years ago by this government. They jacked up the rents for our frail and elderly living in nursing homes by 15%, when the law says everyone else could

only get 3%. They have no money for our seniors, but they could spend $8 million on the most expensive leadership campaign in history. They have no money for our most vulnerable, but they have $10

million for sports teams in secret tax deals.

Let's look at the spending behaviour of some of the cabinet ministers: up to $100,000 of taxpayers' money spent on

totally unreasonable expenses. It's "Do as I say, not as I do" over on the other side of the House. They've got millions of dollars to spend on themselves with fancy dinners at steak houses,

expensive hotel rooms and in-room movies, but when it comes to our seniors, our frail, our vulnerable, the government doesn't just say, "You're on your own." No, it's worse. They say, "You're on

your own, and we're going to pick your pockets while we're at it."

It can't get much worse. The Harris-Eves government has lost touch with Ontario. They are looking out for themselves and their friends and they forget about

the people, especially the frail and elderly, here in the province of Ontario.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Curtis Moore lives in Stevensville. He's just a kid, but he's a kid with autism. His parents, Craig and

Joanne, both incredibly hard-working, honest people, indeed both working people -- you see, they can't afford not to, because they have to pay $40,000 a year out of pocket for the autism treatment

that Curtis requires.

They have no idea how they're going to pay back the borrowed money. They have no idea how they're going to finance this treatment at the cost of $40,000 a

year. They've embarked on it anyway. You see, they've been forced by this government to resort literally to panhandling.

On Labour Day past, they got permission from Sherkston Shores resort to stand at the tollgate, the entry to Sherkston Shores, soliciting spare change from cars

coming in, people visiting Sherkston Shores for the weekend.

This government should be ashamed of its abandonment of kids with autism and their families. It's imperative that this government move those children out of

the ambit and scope of community and social services and make their treatment an OHIP-covered treatment so that Curtis Moore, Sarah Toner and so many other kids like them can get the treatment that

they deserve, that they have a right to and that will enable them to live their lives fully and reach their full, real potential.

LORI BARBER

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): When a five-year-old girl put skates on and participated in her first learn-to-skate program at the then Keswick

Figure Skating Club, something about the ice, the blades and the cold clicked with Lori Barber.

Lori used to wake her parents up at 6 am to get ready for the rink; then she waited for them in the car. Her enthusiasm never faded throughout the next 15

years of skating. Lori is still first at the rink and last to get off the ice.

In her skating career, Lori has had many ups and downs and disappointments. Throughout it all, Lori has never given up her dream to become a championship

skater. Courage, determination and perseverance have given Lori many memorable moments, highlighted by her most recent accomplishment when she passed the highest competitive free skate test in

Canada. It was a first for any Georgina skater.

Congratulations, Lori, and good luck with your skating this year.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): It is truly disappointing to see the double standard of this government unfold

before the public of Ontario. The Harris-Eves government pledged that it would get rid of government waste and that taxpayers' hard-earned dollars would be spent fairly and wisely.

Well, the facts speak for themselves. Under Mike Harris, when Janet Ecker was Minister of Community and Social Services, she cancelled the $32-a-month

nutrition allowance for pregnant women on social assistance. However, that same minister turned around and billed Ontario taxpayers $66,000 for her expenses. When John Baird was Minister of

Community and Social Services, he spent $4,900 on an image consultant for himself. Yet this same minister stood in the House and voted against a cost-of-living increase for people on the Ontario

disability support program, who have not had a raise in more than a decade.

The people of Ontario are outraged as these Tory leopards are truly showing their spots. They will pounce on the poor while they greedily enjoy the spoils at

the Eves trough. The people of Ontario want accountability, integrity, transparency and leadership restored to their government. That will happen when Dalton McGuinty is Premier of Ontario.

OKTOBERFEST

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Tomorrow, Kitchener-Waterloo will kick off official celebrations for the 34th annual Oktoberfest. It's

the second-largest in the world. This 10-day event is visited annually by Ontarians, citizens from other provinces, as well as our neighbours to the south from states such as Pennsylvania, Texas,

Missouri, Ohio, Michigan and California. It's not uncommon to see busloads of people coming from states as far away as Virginia, West Virginia -- everywhere in the States. Further to that, we even

have visitors from overseas who come to enjoy some of the delectable cuisine, delicious desserts and, of course, some beer for those of age.

I am pleased to say that our own Minister of Tourism, the Honourable Frank Klees, will tap the keg tomorrow morning. Oktoberfest brings a direct annual

economic impact to the area in the amount of $18 million, including $1.3 million to non-profit charities.

I want to congratulate Lois Peterson, president of Oktoberfest, and Larry Blundell, executive director of Oktoberfest, for their hard work, and of course the

over 500 volunteers without whose efforts Oktoberfest would not happen. Let me take this opportunity to wish the Oktoberfest committee the best of luck for a successful Oktoberfest.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Who knew a few short months ago that the Eves trough would be overflowing with such goodies

for Ernie and his friends. Let's see if we can follow the timeline.

Ernie was elected leader of the Tories. A few days later he goes to a Toronto Maple Leafs game and sits with Mike Harris and Steve Stavro, the owner of the

Toronto Maple Leafs. A few days after that, magically the Leafs and the other pro sports teams are handed a $10-million tax break, a payback from the government of Ontario. A few people were trying

to listen in on the conversation. Was Ernie saying he'd give him 10 bucks for the beer or $10 million for the year? Either way, we know who picked up the tab. Joe Taxpayer. That's who.

Whether it's alcohol or pro sports teams, the Eves government is picking the pockets of Ontario's families and hoping nobody notices. When they passed their

secret deal to help out the wealthy sports teams, it was such a secret that nobody even knew it happened. They'll make secret deals, quiet handshakes in dark hallways and hope that nothing ever

sees the light of day. Ernie and his buddies are driving their limousines up to the loading dock at Queen's Park and shovelling the money out, millions of dollars at a time.

One by one those guys over there are lining their pockets, lining up for whatever goodies they can get their hands on. They'll charge the taxpayer for anything

and everything. It's called greedy. It's called out of touch. It's called inappropriate and unacceptable. It's an entitlement mentality that is pervasive over there, and that's why they're on their

way out.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Order, please. I would just ask members to watch the line. That last statement was certainly

getting very close. Please bear that in mind when making statements.

EMPLOYMENT IN NIPISSING

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today, I stand before the House to speak about the recent loss of jobs in my riding of Nipissing. I would first

like to say that I realize the difficulties these people and their families are going through right now, because losing a job due to cutbacks or global competitiveness is not easy to take. It is

especially difficult for those raising a young family and those already struggling with debt due to mortgages and the costs of day-to-day living.

I just want to say that as MPP for the riding of Nipissing, it does concern me to see people losing their jobs when currently we are struggling to keep people

in the north at any given time. To have these people lose jobs specific to our area is hard for us northerners to digest.

One of my long-term goals upon taking my role as MPP for Nipissing was to promote job creation and the retention of people in the north, especially our young

people. This is why I will continue to persevere in the goal to have more businesses set up in the north and to have more jobs created. I understand that many times job loss is beyond government's

control when dealing with the ever-changing global marketplace, but when it is possible, I believe that all three levels of government should work together to bring solutions to the table rather

than deal with the terrible aftermath of job loss.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Yesterday we learned that Tory ministers and their assistants will go to the ends of the earth and back,

as long as they can charge the taxpayers for it.

More than $2 million has been racked up by that Tory bunch in expenses charged to the average taxpayer. While families were opening skyrocketing hydro bills,

Cam Jackson was eating expensive steaks and making us pay for it. While our elderly were hit with a 15% rent increase, the Harris-Eves government was handing over $10 million to pro sports teams.

While our vulnerable were told there would be no more home care services, ministers were living high on the hog and spending $2 million. While our kids are in overcrowded classrooms with no

textbooks, Ernie Eves was eating at Bigliardi's and charging it to Ontario's families.

There's a stench emanating from that side of the House. One rule for the province, one rule for the cabinet ministers. You want everyone else to tighten their

belts, but when it comes to you and your friends, look out: the taxpayers' wallets are open and the money is flowing.

Ontario families are sick and tired of this double standard. They are sick of secret deals and being stuck with the tab for your expensive dinners. Ontarians

don't want a Premier who puts himself and his friends first. They want a government that will work for them and give them open and accountable government with real integrity. They want ethical

leadership. They want the leadership that Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party can provide in direct alternative to that. That's what this is about: honest and integrity in government.

RIDING NAME

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): One week ago, on October 3, I introduced Bill 185, the Representation Amendment Act that, if passed,

would have changed the name of my riding from Waterloo-Wellington to Waterloo-Wellington-Kitchener.

At present the names of the provincial electoral districts, or ridings, are identical to those of the federal electoral districts. By adding specific reference

to the city of Kitchener in the name of my riding, this bill proposes an exception to the rule.

Based on my 12 years of experience in the Ontario Legislature, first representing the riding of Wellington from 1990 to 1999 and now Waterloo-Wellington, I

believe that this new name would better reflect the nature of the constituency that I am now privileged to represent. Waterloo-Wellington is the greatest riding in the province, a scenic diversity

of small towns, rural areas and a significant part of a major urban area in the city of Kitchener.

Based on statistics used by Elections Canada, I can inform the House that right now 26% of my riding, or over 31,000 constituents of mine, reside in the city

of Kitchener.

Under the new ridings proposed by the federal government, the Kitchener component of my riding would grow to almost 40% of the total population of the riding,

or more than 43,700 constituents. Kitchener is a major city in Ontario, an important part of Waterloo-Wellington, and I believe that by changing the name of my riding to

Waterloo-Wellington-Kitchener we will enhance my ability to represent all of my constituents.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Reports by committees? Hearing none, introduction of bills. Hearing none, motions.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Did you have a bill?

Interjection.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Yes, I do.

The Deputy Speaker: At this point I don't sense there will be any objection, so quickly place your bill, please, member for --

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My riding has changed to Davenport.

The Deputy Speaker: Davenport.

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

Mr Ruprecht moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 189,

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 189, 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 Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This bill has two purposes: one, it will stop the brain drain, that is to say, the flight of highly trained

foreign professionals, to the United States; and two, it will stop discriminatory practices against foreign-trained professionals, so that they can participate in the dynamic growth of this city

and this country.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that following amendment be made to the membership of a

certain committee: Mr Wettlaufer replace Mr Klees on the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

COMMITTEE REPORT

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I need consent to put this motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is there agreement to allow the motion to be put? I hear agreement.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 15, 2001, the standing committee on the Legislative

Assembly shall submit its report on the inquiry into parliamentary reforms to the assembly by no later than December 12, 2002.

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

VISITORS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): We have in the gallery today the mayor of Hawkesbury and his wife, Jacques Hétu and

Muguette, who are visiting us in the Legislative Assembly. Also, we have the president of a fundraising group for the cancer society, Léo Proulx and his wife, Diane, from St Isidore de

Prescott. They have raised over $80,000 for the cancer society in the last two years. Welcome to Queen's Park.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Welcome to our guests.

May I also take this moment to ask the House to welcome, seated in the Speaker's gallery today, the Honourable Matthew Roberts, Speaker of the Legislative

Assembly of St Lucia, West Indies, and Mr Bob Speller, MP for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant and chair of the executive committee of the CPA. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm sure that members would want to know that M me Réjeanne Wood, the wife of the former

member from Cochrane North, is here, along with the mother of one of our pages, who is here to visit today.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I didn't hear you acknowledge that my wife, Marilyn, is in the east

gallery. She enables me to do all the hard work for the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: You make it sound like I knew ahead of time; come on. Welcome.

Anybody else? All right.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday there was an exchange in this House involving the

Minister of Northern Development. Mr Bisson said, quote, "You are threatening, Minister, to root out public servants who may have a political affiliation of one kind or another." The minister's

response to this was clearly heard by many members of this House. He said, quote, "It's not a threat; I promise to do so."

Deputy Premier, yesterday your minister promised to fire any public servant who is not a PC Party member. Do you think it's appropriate for a minister to

promise to fire public servants because of their private beliefs?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I think we all know that Mr Wilson, the minister, takes the issues that face

northerners very seriously. In fact he is out of the House today making a statement on a highway improvement in order to improve the safety for northern development.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Order. I can't hear the Deputy Premier responding, so I can't imagine anyone else can either.

Please, we want to hear what the Deputy Premier has to say.

Sorry for the interruption, Minister.

Back to the deputy leader of the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Deputy Premier, true democratic government rests on the foundation of a professional bureaucracy that rises above politics to

serve people. Those comments yesterday set that principle on its ear. Threatening to root out and fire public servants because of their private beliefs is inappropriate. Promising to do it is

undemocratic. It's bad enough that the NDP appointed David Agnew cabinet secretary. You filled the public service with names like David Lindsay, Deb Hutton and Bill Farlinger. Why should a minister

be allowed to threaten public servants because of their private beliefs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I understand that Minister Wilson has issued a statement of clarification. He will be in the House personally on Tuesday.

Mrs Pupatello: Deputy Premier, your minister promised to fire public servants because of their private beliefs. The people of Ontario will not

accept a government that is stacked with government hacks. The people of Ontario will not accept a ruling party that attempts to stifle democratic debate. That's what you did yesterday, and that's

what he said with his promise. You showed that this government fears everything it can't control. Deputy Premier, why does your government fear its critics so much that you threaten to fire public

servants because of their private beliefs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it is important the minister have the opportunity to personally respond. I have just stated that he has issued a

statement of clarification. He will be in the House on Tuesday. I think we all are well aware of the fact that he takes his responsibilities as Minister of Northern Development very seriously.

Certainly he is busy today fulfilling that responsibility. He is making a very important and scheduled announcement on major safety improvements to Highway 11.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kitchener Centre and the member for St Catharines to start, and I'll go through the whole House if I have

to.

PREMIER'S EXPENSES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My next question is also to the Deputy Premier. I'm holding in my hand new proof of the extravagant

spending of Ernie Eves. These expenses were not part of the documents that were turned over to us under the freedom of information law. These were kept secret from us and from the public. These are

several thousands of dollars in expenses, hidden by having senior public servants pay for them -- not political staff -- civil servants whose expenses would not be attributed to the minister or his

office. Deputy Premier, why did the Premier attempt to cover up these expenses that he incurred and hide them from public view?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I have no information wherewith the member opposite is talking about but I think

the Premier has made it quite clear that the information that was asked for has been provided to the opposition. So we have no information whatsoever about what she has there in her hands.

Mrs Pupatello: Deputy Premier, let me read you some of the figures that are in this list: hotel in New York for Ernie Eves $1,334, expensed by

Michael Gourley, the deputy minister; accommodation for Ernie Eves, minister, in Tokyo, Japan, $1,400, expensed by Michael Gourley, deputy minister; dinner, including Mr and Mrs Eves and three

others, $1,020, expensed by Tony Salerno, chair of the Ontario Financing Authority; hotel in New York for Ernie Eves $1,072, expensed by Tony Salerno.

Minister, why were these expenses not released, why did Ernie Eves try to bury them in the bureaucracy and how much did Ernie Eves really cost taxpayers as he

wined and dined his way around the world?

Hon Mrs Witmer: This is absolutely unbelievable. The Premier has released all of his expenses. However, I would ask the member opposite, are

you the same individual who has overspent your global budget every year that you've been elected?

Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to send this list over with a page.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Please take your seat. The microphone is not on.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's the last day of the week. Let's try and get through it. Sorry for the interruption, deputy leader of the

official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker. I'm going to send via a page this information to the Deputy Premier. Thank you, Rachel.

Minister, there is more: a $2,550 fee for a conference in Chicago. It was expensed by Leanne Burkholder, a senior analyst at the Ontario Financing Authority,

but it clearly says the expense was for E. Eves. The total for just these eight expense forms is more than $9,000 -- $9,000 hidden from people, $9,000 kept from us and the public, $9,000 expensed

by the bureaucrats to shield the minister. Why did the Premier hide his expenses through the civil service?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker, I'm going to refer this to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): It's amazing. On the rare occasions that the Liberals

tell the truth, they only tell you part of the truth.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister will know that's not acceptable. Please withdraw.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I withdraw.

Let's put this in context. With tremendous fanfare, in the Toronto Sun -- I'll refer to that tremendous newspaper -- the Liberals say that Dalton McGuinty

billed taxpayers $34,319 in travel, accommodation, expenses etc. But let's put this in a real context; let's look at the real numbers. The real numbers are, the Toronto Sun goes on to say, travel

to and from Ottawa $41,000; other travel, whatever that means, $19,000; family travel $17,000. That's $77,782 over seven years -- I assume we're using the seven-year standard. That's $544,474.

That's over half a million dollars. Tell the whole truth.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Order on the government benches and in the official opposition.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines

threatened to fire any members of the public service who answer questions of opposition MPPs regarding important issues in our constituencies. More specifically, where an MPP asks a member of the

civil service, "How can the community hospital in my community that is struggling with an operating deficit achieve a balanced budget, and how can it make use of government initiatives?" the

response of the minister was that he promises that any civil servant that provides information like that will be fired.

This is disgusting behaviour. It's an assault on the neutrality of the civil service and on democracy. Do you defend this disgusting behaviour or are you going

to fire this minister?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): As I indicated in my previous comments, the Minister of Northern Development has

issued a statement of clarification. But if we want to take a look at the whole issue of health care, I think we need to recognize, again, the passion and commitment that the minister has

demonstrated for northern development and his concern, obviously, that the hospital receive adequate funding.

I think the leader of the third party also knows that our government has made a tremendous commitment to improve health services for people throughout the

province of Ontario. Our funding for health has increased from about $17.6 billion when we were first elected to well over $25 billion. We are moving forward to provide the Sensenbrenner Hospital

with the appropriate funding that it can use to service the people in that community.

Mr Hampton: This is not about passion; this is about intimidation. This is about a threat to fire any civil servant who answers questions

about how a community could deal with its hospital deficit. This is the kind of thuggish behaviour that you find in dictatorships, "Answer a public interest question and I will fire you. I will

shut you up."

My question is ve