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

December 8, 2005

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Dec-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 8 December 2005 Jeudi 8 décembre 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT

LE CONSOMMATEUR

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FUNDRAISERS

VIOLENT CRIME

PROPERTY TAXATION

JEFFREY HAWKINS

KARLA HOMOLKA

SHARE A CHRISTMAS

BÉNÉVOLES /

VOLUNTEERS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

COURT BACKLOG

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

HYDRO GENERATION

WOMEN'S STUDIES

INJURED WORKERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PROJECT LIFESAVER

ELECTORAL REFORM

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

ONTARIO FILM

AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY /

INDUSTRIE ONTARIENNE

DU FILM ET DE LA TÉLÉVISION

LIQUOR LICENSING

DEFERRED VOTES

ENDING MANDATORY RETIREMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

POUR ÉLIMINER LA RETRAITE

OBLIGATOIRE

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROPERTY TAXATION

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CRIME PREVENTION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GAMMA FOUNDRIES

LONG-TERM CARE

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HOUSE SITTINGS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

OPPOSITION DAY

ECONOMIC POLICY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2005 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

Mr. Berardinetti moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender / Projet de loi 9, Loi interdisant la discrimination des prix fondée sur le

sexe.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Berardinetti, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I want to start off by indicating that I will be sharing my time later on this morning with

the members from Peterborough, Thornhill and Stoney Creek. I just wanted to indicate that at the outset.

As you know, this is the second time this bill has come before the assembly here. We dealt with this on Thursday, 14 April, when it received second reading and

was sent off to committee. The exact same bill as before is being brought forward and being debated once again here today.

I wanted to start off by introducing my wife, who is present here today, Michelle Berardinetti. She joins me once again. She is actually the inspiration and the

author behind this bill in many ways. Around the time we got married, a lot of the issues that are in this bill that I will be speaking about in the next few minutes came about, due to our many

conversations and our many discussions over this. I wanted to thank her for being here today. Michelle, thank you for being here.

Bill 9,

An Act to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender, deals with a basic human right. Many things have happened since the bill was first

introduced and first debated on April 14, the biggest thing probably being that a lot of media picked up on this issue and allowed me an opportunity to talk to many of them.

What this basically comes down to is one thing: human rights versus economics. Some will argue, "Let the marketplace decide what the price should be for a

haircut, what the price should be for men's or women's dry cleaning," or "Let's raise the price of men's haircuts so they match women's haircuts," or "Let's charge everyone $6.95 to dry clean a

shirt," or "Let's charge everyone for alterations, not just men," and that prices will be driven up.

That argument has no basis, and I'll tell you why: If you look back in history, and perhaps the most recent example is about 130 years ago in the 1860s, in the

United States, a huge debate and a huge discussion took place involving individual rights versus economics. There were people living in towns like Atlanta and other cities in the south, like

Richmond and Georgia, who argued that they had the right to own people, they had the right to have slaves, they had the right to have plantations and to have people work on those plantations, and

that the people who worked on those plantations were their property. This was an economic argument. They were willing to die for this, they believed so strongly in it. In fact, over 600,000

Americans -- and about half of them came from the south -- died fighting wars over this issue. In the end, the north part of the United States succeeded in winning the war, and Abraham Lincoln

introduced the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which indicated and made clear individual rights and that all people were free, regardless of economic conditions. Many in the south, for many

years afterward, continued to claim and to argue that their economic condition had been ruined. What was more important -- the economy of the south or the rights of individuals to be free?

Perhaps it's a bit of a drastic example to use, but the same thing applies here today in Ontario in the year 2005. Is it right that a woman should pay more for a

haircut, three or four times as much, if she spends the same amount of time in the chair as a man does? This bill makes it clear that what I'm speaking of, and what this bill speaks of, is equal

time. If someone does work more on a woman's haircut than a man's haircut, yes, they should be entitled to charge more for the service and the person should pay more; but if myself and my wife were

to sit in a barber's chair or a hairdresser's chair for 20 minutes at the same time, to get roughly the same amount of hair cut off, why should she pay $80 and I pay $15 for that same service? If

she's wearing a cotton dress shirt similar to mine, which she's wearing today, and we were both to go to the dry cleaner, why should she pay $6.95 and I pay $1.45? If she were to go and buy herself

a piece of clothing, or a suit or a jacket similar to the one I'm wearing, a pair of pants like the ones I'm wearing here today in the Legislature, why should she pay substantially more than I do

and, on top of that, have to pay for alterations -- over $100 for alterations -- while I should not?

Some would say this is up to the economy. Again, if you want to argue that position, you might as well go back to the 1860s; you might as well go back to the

United States and north versus south. This example has played itself out many other times throughout our lifetime. The bottom line again, as I've said before, is human rights. The United Nations

makes it clear in its charter -- and I have a copy of it here in front of me -- that every individual is entitled to be free of discrimination. Our Canadian Charter,

section 15, speaks of the right

to be free and to be treated equally under the law, regardless of sex, origin or nationality, and other grounds as well. Our Ontario Human Rights Code -- I made reference to this last April --

makes similar provisions that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, sex, age, and so on and so forth.

We have this on the international level, the national level and the provincial level. Yet, in 2005, we still have discrimination. We still have cases where

people, based simply on their gender, are treated differently. The question that I put forward to everyone in the Legislature today is one I've put forward before, and that is: Why should a dollar

in the hands of a man be different than a dollar in the hands of a woman? In both cases, that dollar should be able to buy the same amount of goods or the same amount of services. The unfortunate

truth in 2005 is that that is not the case. There are differences in the way women are treated as opposed to the way men are treated.

I also wanted to indicate the importance of allowing this discussion to go forward to committee. I'm going to move at the end of this debate, when the time

comes, I think around noon today, that this be sent to a standing committee of the Legislature. I hope it doesn't just sit there. I know it's up to the House leaders, but ultimately it's up to all

members of this House to have this matter debated at committee because there is a lot of interest in this issue. A lot of people are interested in this issue, and there have been articles that came

out on the Internet that I was able to find and that my wife pointed out to me that had been printed in places like Bombay, India, New Zealand, we have an

article from the Taipei Times, all

discussing this issue, saying, "How can it be that men and women can be charged different prices for basically the same goods or services?" So this discussion needs to take place, and the sooner

the better. Some may say that it's not a discussion for us here as legislators. I would disagree. Let's take it to committee. Let's let the people deal with this matter at one of the standing

committees and bring it forward and vote on it. If people feel strongly against it, so be it, but I think that the day has come to make the changes to bring about the necessary good for all

concerned here in Ontario and elsewhere.

Today is December 8. I think back to 25 years ago on this day and I remember it. I was a young university student, sitting in my house, when I heard the news

that someone had been shot. His name was John Lennon. He was shot 25 years ago today. When one stops to reflect on his life, one remembers that in many ways he tried to fight for a lot of things

that are important to us and that have resonated with us and throughout the world ever since. His songs Imagine, for example, and Give Peace a Chance are played constantly in various parts of the

world. I've been reading many articles paying tribute to him over the past few days. In his song Imagine, he says the words:

You may say I'm a dreamer,

But I'm not the only one,

I hope someday you'll join us,

And the world will live as one.

In many ways this stands for many different causes, whether it be peace, equality, elimination of discrimination, or justice for all. In this case I simply ask

today, on December 8, that we honour that commitment to bring about equality and human rights equality for all in Ontario. I ask this House to pass second reading of this bill and that it be sent

to committee for further debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm certainly pleased to participate in this debate this morning on Bill 9, the Gender-Based Price

Discrimination Prohibition Act, 2005, introduced by the member for Scarborough Southwest. I want to commend the member for once again bringing this issue forward. I guess we should also

congratulate his wife for having raised his awareness of an issue that most of us have experienced throughout our lifetime as females, seeing that when it comes to some of the services and products

that we purchase, there does seem to be a price differential. We're not quite sure why that happens.

It was interesting that when this was brought forward last time, there was quite a bit of media interest. It was certainly something that newspapers around the

world did pick up and take note of. However, I would have to say that I've not received a lot of letters or faxes in my office. I brought a few that I did receive that my staff have passed along to

me. We got some faxes and e-mails. One is a message from Joe, on April 20. Joe is from Petersburg, Ontario. He says:

"Hi, Elizabeth.

"I just have a comment with regards to the bill that would ensure men and women pay equal prices for things. Although I agree to this in principle, I think in

most cases there are legitimate reasons for the price differences, supply and demand being one of them. Women's haircuts are typically more labour-intensive and their clothes are oftentimes more

intricate.

"One question I have, though: Does the bill include auto insurance premiums? In theory it should, as this is one example of blatant gender discrimination."

Then I got another one from Patricia in Burlington. "Retail gender discrimination: Elizabeth mentioned that she has paid more for her dry cleaning and

alternations but it is not based on gender. Then what is it based on? I specifically do not get a pedicure/manicure in the GTA area because the female pedicure/manicure is twice that of a man. Last

year I asked a salon that I would like a man's manicure, since I don't wear nail polish at all, and they refused. Why should they refuse when I don't want any nail polish, but a `simple clean,'

just like the men's? It is gender discrimination.

"I am fine with hair salons charging more for long hair than short hair. That makes sense. But for the same service, charging different prices is ludicrous. The

excuse at the dry cleaner's is that men's shirts are a standard size. Standard size? How can that be when 30% of Canadians are overweight, especially men. So what standard sizes are they talking

about?

"It's about time someone pays attention to same-service gender services."

I got one other short e-mail from Brendan, who lives in Kitchener: "My question is about the new law being tabled about the gender-bias pricing. I am wondering

if that would include car insurance specifically for young males."

The last time the issue was brought to the attention of this House, it certainly did encourage people to think thoughtfully about all of this. I think it's

important that this issue, which obviously does have interest for the people in the province and elsewhere, be discussed, be debated.

I can support the principle behind this bill: that it is intended to prohibit discrimination. I strongly support any initiative on which we would take action

against any form of discrimination. In this case, the bill specifically says that we need to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender. I guess: What do we mean by price discrimination?

What do we mean by price discrimination based on gender? That's a very important question and it needs to be answered. How are you going to determine if indeed the discrimination is based on

gender? Who is going to have the authority to make that determination? What criteria are going to be established in order to determine that there is gender discrimination? I see in the bill that

the Ontario Human Rights Commission would have the authority to listen to the complaints that might be filed, as well as the Superior Court of Justice.

The bill speaks to the fact that if we're going to deal with this issue of gender discrimination, we would have to establish some sort of infrastructure and

determine who is going to be eligible to file complaints, what the process is going to be to handle these complaints, what additional financial and human resources are going to be required, and who

is going to do the investigation. I think we need to recognize that there is more than just acknowledging and saying in the House today, "We support this." When you move forward, there are

certainly other questions that will need to be answered.

But again, we are talking about discrimination. I do oppose any form of discrimination. I think we can see, though, when you take a look at this issue, that

there are some consequences, some additional costs that are going to be incurred. What is the impact going to be on the people in Ontario?

When the bill last came up for discussion, somebody suggested -- I think I read this in a newspaper

article -- that perhaps it might mean that everybody's price

goes up. Maybe the male paying for his shirt will be forced to pay the same as a woman paying for her blouse. That would not be a good consequence of this.

We know that there is some legislation similar to this in California. Taking a look at that, I also understand that, regrettably, the legislation is routinely

violated because of a lack of public awareness. Again, that leads us to ask the question, if this legislation were passed, how would we enforce it, and what additional financial and human resources

would be required to do so?

I think the importance of this bill is the fact that the member has brought it forward, and he has pointed out that there is discrimination, that there is a

difference in prices for products and services that are provided to women, and they usually, in some cases, are higher than those provided to males. I hope just raising this bill in the House might

lead some of those who are involved in offering services, those who are involved in the production of goods, to seriously take a look at the issue of maybe making sure that in future there is more

fairness. I hope it raises the awareness of those individuals, and I hope companies might reconsider why they would price some products for women higher than for men. I hope it will encourage those

who offer a service to take a second look and seriously consider if indeed there is price discrimination, and if there is a reason for the price differential, if there are valid reasons, I think we

need to know that as well.

I want to congratulate the member. I know he is very passionate about this issue, and I commend him for bringing it forward. I think it deserves some further

examination as to what would be the consequences, is the discrimination real, and it needs more study before we would obviously give final approval to this recommendation.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of my colleague's bill, Bill 9, An

Act to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender.

There was a situation that occurred a number of years ago. I believe it was brought to light by the late Shaughnessy Cohen, who was a very distinguished member

of Parliament from the Windsor area -- I know, Mr. Speaker, you knew her quite well -- an outstanding individual who died far too young in terms of her contribution to public life. But I recall one

of the things that she raised on this particular issue. She was a lawyer in the Windsor area, and often talked about and brought to light the fact that when she was getting her legal robes dry

cleaned -- before going to the Windsor courthouse to make representation on behalf of her clients -- the cost of dry cleaning her shirts, which were quite similar to the shirts worn by her male

colleagues as part of their legal robes, was much more expensive than for her male colleagues. She would always ask the question about why that happened when she was looking at her male colleagues

wearing exactly the same kind of shirts.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from Scarborough Southwest on this particular issue, along with his colleague from Scarborough Centre and my

new colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River -- a great new trinity of representation from Scarborough. They've all had distinguished careers in municipal politics, and now they're making their mark

here in the Ontario Legislature.

I just want to quote from a couple of articles here. One of them was written in the Wall Street Journal in May 1994 by Joan Rigdon. She talks about similar

legislation that was brought forward in California. There are just a couple of quotes here that I think are interesting and highlight the challenges of why we need to get rid of the gender bias.

She says:

"Michelle Fadelli, an executive for a regional government agency in California, cites her own personal experience. One day last year, she bought five suits for

herself and four for her husband at an R. H. Macy & Co. department store in Sacramento. When she ordered similar alterations for each suit, her charges came to $142," -- for the alterations --

"but his alterations were free."

"`It was incredibly unfair,' says Ms. Fadelli. When she complained to a store manager, the charges were waived. But `I got the impression it was a grand favour,'

she says. Macy's associate general counsel, Carol Katz, couldn't comment on Ms. Fadelli's case but says it is against company policy to charge different prices for the same alterations."

Continuing in the article:

"Barbara Sobel, an aide to Supervisor Shelley" -- in the government of Sacramento -- "has her own story. She says her regular dry cleaner charges $2.50 to press

and launder each of her button-down cotton shirts when she brings them in. But, she says, the same dry cleaner charged half that price when her boyfriend took her shirts in last month."

This is an interesting trail here, and something I believe this member sees as very important. In fact, this bill, Bill 9, should get out to committee for

further study to take a very serious look at this situation.

My friend from Kitchener I think made a good point this morning. When Teddy Roosevelt was President of the United States, he used to say his office was important

as a bully pulpit to change behaviours in communities. I think this is one of the essential pieces of this bill, that as we highlight the problems that exist, this legislation, if passed into law,

will make us much more aware of the situation and in fact influence behaviours in various segments of our community.

It's an important piece of legislation and I'm pleased the member has seen fit to bring it back. I certainly wholeheartedly support it and I think it's

appropriate that we move forward at this particular time.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to join in the House today on the subject of this bill, proposed by the member from

Scarborough Southwest. Bill 9, the Gender-Based Price Discrimination Prohibition Act, intends to end the differences in price for the same goods and services that exist between men and women. I

don't doubt for a minute that the member is reintroducing his bill with a genuine concern and a genuine wish for equality in the consumer market of Ontario. I know when he introduced the bill in

our last session, he got an incredible amount of media, not just in Canada but internationally.

The intentions are good, and I've certainly spoken in the House many times in support of policies and programs that can assist our continuing struggle toward

equality throughout Ontario. I'm just concerned that if this bill is enacted and is passed into legislation, it opens up an entire new can of worms that we could not control.

I know there's current legislation similar to what's being proposed throughout some of the United States, and the American laws, especially California's 1995

Gender Tax Repeal Act, have been used to model the current bill. The legislation that currently exists in the states of Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts is as well-intentioned as

the bill proposed by the member from Scarborough Southwest. However, these states already had in place an infrastructure to address some of the consumer grievances. To expect that the Ontario Human

Rights Commission has both the resources and staff to examine and administer the thousands of files that will represent each and every single complaint from Ontario consumers, not to mention the

eventual hearings and fines -- it's quite large.

If, under the legislation, businesses could be fined up to $5,000 for violations, that's a costly contingency plan, for example, for small salon owners, dry

cleaners and retailers to have to put into place to prepare for a possible lawsuit or fine, and I've got some e-mails to that effect. It's kind of unfair that we're discouraging small businesses

from setting their own prices, using their own discretion and, to put it simply, doing their job. If there is a constant threat of lawsuits, fines and investigations hanging over the heads of

Ontario business owners, if the government puts into place elaborate plans of new enforcement officers and officials who police businesses and investigate complaints, businesses will, in the

short-term, comply with the arbitrary pricing rules set by the provincial government, but in the long-term, these businesses have to set up personal insurance savings plans. Small businesses will

have to set aside savings, keep money saved in case they face a hearing or a fine, and then they will pass on the increased overhead costs of running their businesses to the average Ontario

customer with increased retail prices. The bill appears to assist consumers and lower the average prices of services and goods, but it will cost us all much more money every time we purchase goods

and services.

With many more important issues facing the residents of my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock -- issues which include accessing health care, wait times,

unemployment due to plant closures, increased heating and energy costs -- it's hard to look at this bill and ask small businesses to take on these extra costs and discourage entrepreneurs in my

riding. My riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock has the third-highest percentage of self-employed people in the province. I know the member beside me from Parry Sound-Muskoka has the highest

percentage of self-employed people in the province. I think all the residents of my riding are pretty savvy in their daily shopping decisions, not worried about gender-based price comparisons. How

can the Human Rights Commission judge if a business is unfairly using a gender bias or if the business is simply taking more time and using greater skill for a specific item or service? If a salon

employs a junior stylist to cut men's hair and a more experienced staff member for women, are they required to charge the same amount to men and women, despite the difference in the two staff

members' qualifications?

It should be up to the consumers, I believe, to compare prices among different businesses and decide whether they wish to pay more for an experienced staff

member or for a lengthy and detailed dry cleaning. I would expect that if anyone feels like they are being subject to an unfair price because of gender, race, religion or age -- everybody can vote

with their feet and refrain from patronizing the business that does not treat all of their potential customers equally. I would also expect that Ontarians have far more important issues that they

wish to see brought forth in legislation here by provincial agencies and by the Human Rights Commission than directing the already overstretched resources of our province to the glorified Better

Business Bureau.

As a female member of the House and frequent shopper in my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, I cannot support the Gender-Based Price Discrimination

Prohibition Act. I find it unfair. Legislation that would give the Ontario government the power to enforce prices set by businesses in an attempt to protect half the population -- you can be

assured that if women of Ontario are unhappy with the prices set by a business, they will stop patronizing the business altogether, and they will not hesitate to pass on their dissatisfaction to

many friends and families. The women of Ontario don't need any guaranteed protection from the pricing decisions made by businesses. They can judge that on their own. I commend the intention of the

member for bringing the bill forward, but I just don't think it's going to be fair legislation. We'll listen to further debate in the Legislature this morning on the bill, and hopefully we'll see

discussions.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my pleasure to be here this morning to talk about this bill on gender-based pricing, and I congratulate

the member for bringing it forward. I congratulate his spouse for educating him on the issue. The issue of gender-based pricing is only one of many, many women's issues that are important for us to

address and deal with in this House. I have to say that this is an important one, and I will be speaking to it specifically. We can never let down our guard, we can never become lax in the

recognition and the acknowledgment that women face many challenges in our society, many challenges in our communities day after day. Whether that's the fact that women, particularly senior women,

are overrepresented in the realm of people living in poverty, or women with young children are the largest proportion of single parents living in poverty, we have to recall that this is an issue

that we need to address. When we're dealing with the challenges facing women, the poverty of women is a significant challenge that we need to deal with.

Another important women's issue, of course, one this week, highlighted on December 6, the anniversary of the Montreal massacre at the École Polytechnique in

Montreal, is the fact that women still face violence every day. Women are being killed every day. Women are being beaten every day. Woman abuse is a huge problem in our society, and it's one that

we need to address and take seriously.

So what else? Sexual assault. Women are being sexually assaulted -- young women. The amount of sexual assault that takes place on university campuses is

apparently at a rate that is going through the roof, and that's something that is unacceptable.

All of these issues are women's issues. All of these are serious issues that need to be addressed by this House.

In fact, earlier this week, I reintroduced a bill that Marilyn Churley had introduced previously, to deal with sexual harassment or any kind of harassment,

frankly, in the workplace, trying to make sure that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is a piece of legislation currently that purports to protect workers from dangers in the workplace, and

what this bill does is add harassment to those dangerous things, and that means sexual harassment and racially motivated harassment. Quite simply, any kind of harassment in the workplace should be

addressed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, because it's a piece of legislation that deals with the workplace environment and making sure that it is a safe place for workers. Of course,

a place where you're going every day to earn your living and put a roof over your head and feed your family needs to be a place of safety. When people are harassed at work, that is not a safe

place. Harassment creates a poisoned work environment, and therefore, any kind of harassment in the workplace should be recognized as something that is not acceptable and something that should have

redress under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Those are some of the issues that I see as important women's issues, but let's talk about the issue of discrimination, which is where this member decided to take

some action, and again, I congratulate him for that. Discrimination is still, in this day and age, a huge issue for women. Women are still being discriminated against in their wage structure. It's

surprising. It's amazing. I mean, it has been decades and decades now that women have been struggling for equity in wage structures at work. It simply has not been addressed. Women are still making

80 cents to the dollar that men are making -- that's unacceptable -- for the same job. I'm not talking about different jobs.

Similarly, the member's not talking about different hair styles or different degrees of effort that it might take for a hairdresser to do a certain type of

style, as opposed to another type of style. Everybody recognizes that the amount of money that you charge for one or the other is determined by the amount of effort that's put in. What I'm talking

about is women who are in the workplace doing the exact same jobs as men and not getting paid the same amount, or who are doing jobs that are similar in effort, similar in time, similar in the

required skills and the required knowledge and are still being paid less than men. That's unacceptable in this day and age. It's unacceptable that women are still making 80 cents to the dollar, as

compared to men in terms of their earning capacity.

Women still face a glass ceiling in many workplaces. Again, women are underrepresented in the top echelons of many companies and workplaces. That's unacceptable.

In fact, there was quite a scandal not too long ago when a high-ranking member of a media corporation indicated that women should just go home and suckle their children, that they had no place in

the workplace at the highest-ranking levels. It's scary that people actually still have those opinions and can still bring forward that type of discrimination, that type of really deep-down

ignorance when it comes to the value that women bring to any workplace, and this workplace as well, I would say to my women colleagues who are here.

So I think that the issue of discrimination is extremely important, but what I think happens, unfortunately, is that with issues like the one that the member

from Scarborough Southwest brings forward today, there's a tendency for people to trivialize this kind of an issue. There's a tendency for people to say: "Well, you know, it's not a big deal. Women

are just complaining. It's just not that important." There's a tendency to just kind of brush it aside as something that's not of value to have a discussion about. I disagree with that. In fact, I

believe that a lot of the systemic discrimination that exists in our society is as a result of that kind of attitude: "We can't be bothered. It's not a big deal. So let's just put it aside, put it

on a shelf, because it really doesn't cause much harm."

But you know what? It does cause much harm, not only financially. In this case, in this particular bill, the indication from the member and from the research

he's done and the reason he's bringing it forward, is that economically it causes harm. But it also allows us to continue the systemic pieces of discrimination to be maintained and to thrive in our

society, and we can't allow that to happen. We have to work diligently to make sure that discrimination is something we acknowledge and recognize, and then work to reduce it or eliminate it

completely, which is the best alternative.

I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the services that have been discussed in regard to this bill. When I go back to Hamilton and spend my time there, I

go to many different places where there is no discrimination whatsoever. For example, I'll go to my favourite restaurants downtown, like the My-Thai; or Phulkari, which is closer to the Stoney

Creek riding, on Highway 20 -- it's a great Indian restaurant -- the Gate of India in downtown Hamilton; the Wild Orchid, which is my favourite Portuguese restaurant. In fact, I was at a really

great new restaurant in Hamilton called Brownies where I met with my good friend Mary Pocius and her son Tim, and happened to run into our former regional chair Terry Cooke there not too long ago.

In these places, of course there's no discrimination. What I had for lunch were the same dishes as Tim Pocius had for lunch, and guess what? We paid the same price. Again, when I go to buy art, if

I go to the "you me gallery" on James Street or the Gallery on the Bay or the Transit Gallery on Lock Street, or if I go to the Transit Gallery and then run over to the West Town for some wings, in

none of those places will I pay differently than my spouse, if he's accompanying me, or whoever I happen to be either having dinner with or shopping with, in that kind of vein.

That's not the issue this bill is trying to address. The issue this bill is trying to address is that there are services that are similar or the same that are

being charged differently to women. The one that jumps out at me almost immediately is the issue of toiletries. I find that's one where there is considerable discrimination. I've noticed this now

that my son is 13 and I have to buy his toiletries as well as mine and my husband's, and sometimes theirs together are the same as what mine cost. That's an issue that I think indicates and

reflects or shows what the problem is when it comes to price discrimination. We talk about hairdressers and those issues, and I think one of the other members was talking about the idea of a

pedicure. I've got to tell you, anybody who is willing to give my husband a pedicure, I'd pay them a fortune, because I wouldn't go near those feet if I was paid a million dollars.

I go to a salon on James Street South called Mercedes Salon and Spa. Javier and Mercedes are wonderful people and they do great work. In fact, often in the

last couple of years and certainly this year as well, their salon has been chosen as one of the top salons by the Hamilton Spectator -- a readers' choice type of competition, and they're right up

there at the top. They are up there at the top because they provide a good service, although I have to say it's a different service when they're cutting a man's hair than a woman's hair. But if a

woman and a man are both getting highlights, it would be a similar service and a similar cost.

During the time this bill was first introduced, there was a woman from the east end of Hamilton who had been written up in one of the Hamilton Spectator

articles indicating that when she was doing those types of services that were the same for a man and a woman, she would be charging the same. Where there was a woman's hairstyle that took a wash, a

cut, a blow dry, a set, a style, all of those things each incrementally took a little bit more time, a little bit more effort and maybe a little bit more skill. It's not the same with a man's

haircut, which perhaps was a wash and a cut, and that's the end of the story, especially in the summertime: no need for a blow dryer or anything of that nature, therefore the price would be less. I

have to say, though, that when it comes to the idea of hair particularly, it seems to me that's where a lot of the controversy came up.

Dry cleaning was another one of the areas where a lot of the controversy arose, suggesting that women's clothing is different than men's clothing in terms of

the effort. I think what this member has indicated is that when this bill gets to the committee stage, that's when some of those issues will be further defined.

When I take in a suit of my own, there is a place on the invoice that indicates "ladies' suit" and the price is charged accordingly; when I take in my

husband's suit: "men's suit," priced accordingly. What does "priced accordingly" mean? It shouldn't mean anything. The price should be the same when it's the same type of product.

If I take in the silk shirt that I have on now, I expect to pay a little bit more. If I bring in a silk shirt of my husband's, I expect to pay a little bit

more because it's a delicate fabric that takes a little different service to make that fabric not only clean, but pressed in a way that's appropriate.

I don't think it's a matter of splitting hairs, but I do think there is legitimate price discrimination that occurs right now in the market. I guess that's the

wrong way to say it. Where there is price discrimination that cannot be legitimized based on extra service, extra effort or extra product to be used to deal with that service or product, then there

should not be any price discrimination. Where there is a difference, however, that can be identified -- extra effort, extra product or whatever the case may be -- then I think we would all agree

that that kind of pricing is appropriate to the product.

Having said that, it's interesting: I happen to have had a lot of hairdresser types in my life. My partner is a sixth-generation barber. He and his father had

a barbershop in the Lister Block, which is a famous crumbling building in Hamilton's downtown. Interestingly enough, after barbering, he went into women's hair and was doing hair colouring, so I

actually don't ever have to pay for my colour. My hubby does it himself, so I don't have to worry too much about that.

My grandmother was also a hair stylist. I remember going to her salon when I was young and growing up. She would have other workers there who would be doing

men's hair, and she did women's hair. She also got into a contract for a while where she was actually doing the hair of cadavers in the funeral parlour. When I started thinking about this bill, I

wondered if she charged a different price for a male cadaver and a female cadaver with regard to doing their hair, getting them ready for viewing at the funeral parlour.

I don't know whether she did or not. I wouldn't think so, though. I would think it would be a straight cost based on the fact that these are similar kinds of

jobs that have to be done. I could probably ask my grandma that, and maybe I will some day, but that was an issue that I wondered about.

Nonetheless, I think it's really clear that when we have a product or service that is equal/equitable for men and women, it should be priced at the same

amount. Where there are differences, certainly there's no problem there, but let's not gouge women. Women have enough barriers and challenges that they are trying to address on a daily basis. We

don't need gender-based pricing. We need to get rid of it.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): It is a pleasure to join in this discussion on the bill brought forward by the member from Scarborough

Southwest.

Private members' time is actually my favourite time. You really get a fascinating array of issues that come in to be discussed and have the light shone on them

that might not otherwise happen. A lot of bills that come in during private members' time have great sentiment and great intent behind them, and you shine light on issues that might not normally

get the light of day or get any media coverage. I can tell our member that for earned media, you get an award, because you did get some tremendous media coverage on this issue.

It's one of those things that in our very busy lives we might run into and be annoyed by. We go in to pick up our dry cleaning or we put it in and we see, as

the member from Hamilton East was saying, the little box that's ticked off on the sheet that says "ladies' suit," and you can see "men's suit" underneath and wonder what the price difference is,

but you're in a hurry. The dogs are in the car, the kid is squalling and you've got to get going. You have that moment of annoyance and then you move on and head out and don't actually do anything

about it.

The member from Scarborough Southwest is actually doing something about this. He is addressing it in a responsible way, I believe. He has had some good

publicity around this, and as a result of that publicity there has been tremendous discussion. We've heard letters from around the province. We've heard stories, anecdotes and discussion. He has

brought to light something that requires some attention. In addition to that, he has put a backstop in place to say, "Do you know what? It's not enough to just discuss it. We need to do something

about it."

I think he has done it in a realistic way. Right in Bill 9, he mentions under "definition":

"1. In this act,

"`gender-based pricing' means the practice of charging a different price for the same goods or services on the basis of gender."

Below that, it says,

"Limitation

"

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents price differences that are based upon the cost, difficulty or effort of providing the goods or services."

He's not just saying, "Man or woman, you're treated the same." If there is more complication to a woman's haircut than a man's, then so be it, and perhaps

there should be a higher price. But I can tell you that on the whole, when you go to a hairdresser, you'll see that women's cuts and styles are more expensive than men's.

I have to tell you a little story around that. Because I have long hair, right away the assumption is that my haircut is going to be more expensive than my

husband's. Oftentimes my husband's hair is longer than mine. Right now I've got an edge on him because I haven't had a haircut for a while.

Some of you in the room know that my husband was a member of a former rock group called Honeymoon Suite back in the 1980s, when hair was really important in

rock groups. He had a very complicated hair thing happening there. There was dyeing involved, there was a lot of mousse involved, and he ended up with this quite elaborate hairdo, something that I

have never had in my life. Clearly he was getting a lot more work and he should have been charged a tremendous amount more.

These days he has a gentler, more natural hairdo that suits his life as a stay-at-home dad. He has wonderful natural chestnut hair. I'm glad to see the dyed

red gone. He, interestingly enough, goes to get his hair cut by a former member of the group Platinum Blonde. So there you go; true story. Platinum Blonde has moved on to be actually a hairdresser

in his life. He does get charged less than I do to get my hair cut, not by the former member of Platinum Blonde but when I do get my hair cut; it costs me more.

The member from Kitchener-Waterloo mentioned manicures. There is an assumption that if you're a woman, you want a more complicated hairdo. You want your hair

curled or, if you're having a manicure, you want nail polish put on. Quite frankly, no curl will ever stay in my hair anyway, so I never want that, and I never want nail polish. I didn't know they

did a men's manicure and that there were different prices, but I think the next time I get one, if I ever have time, I will see if that's possible.

I want to congratulate the member from Scarborough Southwest for bringing forth an issue in our society that goes unnoticed that is representative of

discrimination and is really a matter of gouging, in some cases, and for doing it in a responsible way, with this bill. I thank him for that. It has been a very interesting conversation. I look

forward to its moving forward through committee, where we can deal with some of the issues the member for Kitchener-Waterloo mentioned, and other members, where we have some concerns about the way

this should be implemented: the infrastructure, the penalties and all that. That can be done in committee. At this point, it's just great to see it here and great to be able to discuss it

openly.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'll speak.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

Mr. Tascona: I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to Bill 9, which deals with, I believe, the member from Scarborough Southwest

The Deputy Speaker: Sorry; it's a mistake by the Chair. The official opposition's time is up. I was willing to let you speak but the rules

won't allow it.

Is there any further debate from those whose time isn't up?

Mr. Tascona: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could I have unanimous consent to let me speak? There's time on the clock and no one else is

speaking.

The Deputy Speaker: Unanimous consent has been requested for the time that was left on the clock. Agreed?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Now I'm told there was a no.

Life could be made simpler, Mr. Berardinetti, if you would use the time, because you're allowed to.

Mr. Berardinetti: I'll give Mr. Tascona a minute if he wants it, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to read into the record a couple of letters.

Some of the other individuals who spoke earlier -- and I want to thank them, especially the members from Hamilton East and Kitchener-Waterloo, as well as the government members who spoke. They

spoke very well about this bill and covered a lot of the issues. We could go on for hours about it. I simply wanted to add a couple of things into the record.

An 81-year-old lady wrote me a letter and said that she was charged $22 for a haircut and a man who got a haircut similar to hers got $30. She asked, "Why

should he pay $8 more?" She wrote, "My only hope is that I will live long enough to see it go through." I'm simply asking, on her behalf and on behalf of the others who have written to me as well,

that we see this bill go through.

I noticed that there are three minutes left and I have two minutes to wrap up. So what I'm going to do, Mr. Speaker, is allow the member to speak for a couple

of minutes and then I will wrap up in the final two minutes, with the House's consent.

The Deputy Speaker: No, it isn't quite that easy. I have to have unanimous consent to allow the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford to speak,

and we heard a no the last time.

I'll ask once again. Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Mr. Berardinetti, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Berardinetti: It wasn't me who said the no there. I know that Mr. Tascona wanted to speak to this bill, and I do feel bad about it. I hope

the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford will speak to it when we send it to committee. Hopefully, it will be sent there.

In closing, I wanted to again thank all members for speaking in favour of this bill. I have so many other things that I wish I could say on it. I'm glad that

some of the other members who spoke today were able to cover some of those areas.

What's important now is that the debate move beyond this stage and go into the phase of public committee hearings. There are a lot of people in the public who

do want to speak to this. I never expected the explosion of media interviews to occur, but when that did happen, people came and said to me, "Where is it going to go from here?" I said, "To

committee." I know there are those who want to speak to it. Not everyone is going to support this bill. There are those who are going to speak against it for various reasons, and that's fine.

Nothing is ever 100% on one side. There is always someone who is going to oppose something, but I think we should allow this to go forward and let it be debated at committee. That's the key to this

bill. I really want to see it debated and discussed at committee.

When the time comes today, I will move that this go to committee. I would really ask that those who are listening, who are not able to be here today -- the

House leaders and the others -- allow this to at least go to committee. If it dies on the floor of committee, so be it. But there is a lot of public interest in this issue. If it goes to committee,

it will have an opportunity for an airing out and a greater discussion at the committee level. I strongly support that.

I want to thank all those involved, even those in the media who brought this important issue to light.

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT

LE CONSOMMATEUR

Mr. Ruprecht moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act / Projet de loi 38, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Ruprecht, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This June, I discovered some very scary statistics. In Canada, personal disposable income is up to $760

billion, yet the total household debt is up to $875 billion. Canadian consumers spend $115 billion more than we make. The Canadian consumer is running on empty. At best, we are riding on fumes.

Every year, we're borrowing more.

It's fair to say that most Canadians cannot survive without credit. Imagine this: The Canadian Bankers Association Web site shows that the number of Visa and

MasterCard credit cards alone in circulation in Canada in 2004 was 53 million, well exceeding our total population. Since we're now living in a credit-producing world, we need to help our citizens

understand its dangers and pitfalls.

Let's take a good look at the credit reporting system as it is provided by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. They say that credit reporting agencies are

private companies that collect information about a consumer's credit history and transactions and then sell this information in the form of a consumer report. Since we've become an increasingly

credit-dependent society, the credit reporting system can have a major impact on all aspects of our lives. It is one means by which credit granters obtain information that they use as part of the

credit decision process to determine our ability to get a bank loan, a bank account even, a mortgage, a credit card and even employment and rental accommodation. Knowledge about the credit

reporting system as well as the accuracy and reliability of such reports is therefore of critical importance to consumers.

What is also critical to consumers is to understand that credit reporting agencies have a file, a financial profile, on literally every breathing Canadian.

What's in that file is really important, as I pointed out. Yet only 17% of Canadian adults 18 and over have checked their credit rating in the last three years. When they examined their credit

file, over 18% found serious, significant inaccuracies, to the point where they would have been denied credit -- 18% of those who have a credit file. In the United States, it's even higher: 25% of

people in the United States report serious problems and serious errors in their credit files. Imagine this mind-boggling statistic: 79% found in their credit files even minor errors, and

furthermore, 46% -- that's almost every second Canadian -- did not know or understand what the various credit scores mean. This is massive ignorance.

It is our job, as the guardians of our political and economic culture, to ensure that Canadians understand this credit-granting system in order for them not to

be taken advantage of. Bill 38 therefore provides that if there has been a security breach and personal financial information stolen, the financial institution must inform the consumer. As it

stands right now, we have no law that says that if a credit file has been compromised, the agency or the bank must inform the consumer. Literally, we have no existing safeguards against identity

theft when it comes to credit files. In Canada, we don't have a system in place that adequately protects our people's identities from theft. Imagine this: Nearly 10 million people in North America

last year were victimized by identity theft. What's the cost? The cost was over $5 billion. It is therefore urgent and important that this bill is looked at and that we ensure that credit-granting

companies, or even credit reporting agencies, provide us with information when our file has been stolen or compromised. It's very important information.

Second, this bill also provides for truncating vital information. Imagine this: If you have just a few dollars, you can get our privacy commissioner's private

information of who she called, when she called. If we can get all that private information with a few bucks, they can get private information on you and me as well. The consumer has to be

protected. How do we do that? By providing in the credit file a unique identifying number which would mask out, truncate, vital information that's not necessary. That would be the first firewall

against identity theft. The first firewall would simply be not to show social insurance numbers in the credit file. What easier way to do it than to provide a unique identifying number? Our major

financial writers, whether from the Star, the Sun or the Financial Post, are calling for this as well. Tyler Hamilton, James Daw and Linda Leatherdale are all calling for this kind of truncated

information, masking out important items on your credit file. The idea is simple, because it protects us. The consumer has to be protected, and this bill will do it.

The third item says, "Duty to delete unconfirmed information within 30 days." I've just given you some very important statistics. They show that so many

Canadians have examined their files -- 17%. They looked at those and they found many big errors in their credit files. When they go to the credit-granting agencies and credit reporting agencies and

say, "Look, I had an error in my file. Can you please eradicate this error? Can you take it out? Can you do something about it?" what does our law says right now? Our law simply says, "Within a

reasonable time we will be granting you the issue and we'll check it out, we'll do something about it." In the United States, it's 30 days. If you find an error in your credit file on a credit

card, within 30 days of that disputed item, that company has to eradicate it, has to take it off. We in North America are so tied to the US, we're almost second-class citizens. "Reasonable time"

could mean a month, two months, it could even mean a year. For many of our consumers in Canada, this is exactly what takes place.

Number four is, "Duty not to penalize consumers for applying for credit." There are some other items that are important. I hope I have more time later on to

discuss those, but this is one of the most important ones. This bill provides that consumer reporting agencies and other persons may not consider as a key factor in determining the credit score of

a consumer the fact that a consumer report has been requested. Herein lies the problem: If a landlord requests information on a potential tenant, that is an inquiry. Of course, the consumer

reporting agencies will tell you we've got two kinds of inquiries. One is an inquiry that's hard, that has to do directly with if you get credit or if you get a loan; the other one is called a soft

inquiry. They're saying to us, "We're separating the soft inquiries from the hard inquiries." We're saying we have so much proof here in these statistics that this is being mixed up. Why should a

consumer's score be lowered when a soft inquiry is being made? A soft inquiry does not go to the point where you're getting credit or you're getting a loan; it's a soft inquiry. It's an inquiry by

a bank asking about your consumer file. That's a soft inquiry. In some cases that means the numbers are dropping, the index is dropping, and consequently, when the index is dropping from 680 to

640, that means directly that the consumer is being taken advantage of. That means directly you can't get a loan. It's even worse: Now the bank or the consumer credit bureau is saying, "Maybe we

can give you a loan through the back door."

We'll discuss that in a few more minutes. In the meantime, I would only hope that this bill will see the light of day, because the consumer has to be

protected.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for York West.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, you were first up, but if you yield, then I'll go this way.

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): No, that's fine. I'll take my five minutes.

First of all, let me say that I am in support of Bill 38. I think it's a good piece of legislation. I have to acclaim the persistence of the member from

Davenport, who I think has been a champion in pursuing this bill.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): You just lost my vote.

Mr. Sergio: Absolutely, yes. I'm glad that you support Mr. Ruprecht's bill.

He introduced it before, but of course the events were not in his favour, so I'm pleased to see it again. It is good for our consumers. It would be impossible

to deal with all the important aspects of Bill 38 in five minutes, but let me say that everything that Bill 38 contains is with respect to not only improving the reporting agencies' methods but

also assisting many consumers out there who are afflicted, unfortunately, by the existing system, both by the reporting agencies and by the way they use that information by disseminating it.

At the moment, there is absolutely no way that a poor consumer who is caught in this particular web can clean up his act, if you will, or his name or his

credit. There is no venue that exists so that, in a very easy way, people can go and say, "This is wrong. This is misleading. This should not be on my credit, therefore I want it corrected."

Unfortunately, consumer reporting agencies have carte blanche. They have the consumers absolutely at their mercy, and it should not be so. It should not be so.

I believe that when a person requests an inquiry on somebody else's credit, the person affected should be entitled to receive the information, not only from

whom the request is being made but what information is being provided. If you say to the consumer reporting agency, "With all due respect, I have no idea what you're talking about. Why is this on

my credit? I didn't do this," or "I'm not responsible," or "This is not so," do you know what they tell you? Do you know what they tell the poor consumer out there? "This is not my problem.

Somebody has requested the credit information on you, and that's all we are interested in, releasing any information that is on your credit, rightly or wrongly." I believe this is dead wrong, that

consumer reporting agencies are abusing the consumers' rights. You know why? Because they get paid to get that particular credit report, and it's unfair.

I believe consumers should be defended, should be protected, should be notified that they are entitled to receive the same information that is being requested

by somebody making an inquiry. Only then should consumer reporting agencies give out that information.

One thing that the member and I have alluded to before is with respect to the credit scores -- what is this? Do you think that the average consumer out there

knows what this consumer score is all about, how it's being applied, how it affects their credit and stuff like that?

Mr. Ruprecht: Not even MPPs know what their score is.

Mr. Sergio: Probably not. I would say that most of them do.

Let me say that you can go and buy all kinds of things -- a house, a car, furniture -- and have no problem. But the moment that someone checks your credit and

that report is issued, oh boy, you are in trouble because of your credit rating. What's that supposed to mean? Who brought that up, which government, which agency? It's a private agency that is

abusing the interests of the citizens. I believe Bill 38 goes a long way to make such a correction, and I applaud Mr. Ruprecht, the member for Davenport, for bringing it to the House today.

Mr. Tascona: I'm very pleased to speak on the bill. I was pre-empted from speaking on Bill 9 by the member from Dovercourt, but I'm going to

speak on his bill.

I will say this: I have spoken with the member from Scarborough Southwest about committee hearings on Bill 9, and certainly, it should go to government

agencies if we can get it there so we can get some public hearings on that bill. I am certainly in favour of public hearings, but we need to strengthen the bill in terms of the right to go to a

civil claim as opposed to the Human Rights Commission, which is fundamentally not working the way it should for ethnic people. Different groups are supposed to be protected by it, and it's not

working. So that's my comment on Bill 9.

I want to deal with Mr. Ruprecht's bill, Bill 38, which is actually Joe Cordiano's bill. He was the Minister of Economic Development, as we know now, and I

remember him trying to put this forth when he was in opposition. I supported it back then. I thought it was a worthy measure that was put forth by the Minister of Economic Development in terms of

consumer reporting. So I'm pleased to see that the member from Dovercourt has seen fit to bring this forth.

Unfortunately, he's bringing this forth as a private member's bill. If the government was really behind this bill, it would be coming through the Minister of

Government Services. It's not coming forth as a government bill; it's coming forth as a private member's bill, notwithstanding that the Minister of Economic Development wanted it to go through.

Obviously, he hasn't got the clout to get it through the government and put it forth as a government bill. So we have the member from Dovercourt bringing forth a private member's bill on this

particular issue.

At best, this may only serve as an education process for what we're going to speak about today in terms of this bill, as opposed to it actually becoming law,

because there is merit to this bill. A lot of the public doesn't understand that consumer rating reports are asked for when you're looking for financing. They'll go to a consumer rating agency, and

they'll provide a consumer report. You don't necessarily see that report and how it's handled in terms of your financial institution, but the key issue here is whether the information on that

consumer report is accurate or not. That's a big problem. I've been involved in this from a legal sense in dealing with it in terms of people who can phone up to the consumer reporting agency and

say, "This is the information that I understand about this particular company or this particular individual," and somehow that information, without being verified, gets into the consumer

report.

Quite frankly, it can affect the report in terms of whether you're going to get some financing or provide information that could go into a litigation

proceeding where they say that Joe Blow is a shareholder of this particular company, when in fact, how would they know whether that person is a shareholder of the company or whether that person was

the president of the company? That information is not verified. You don't even know whether you saw the articles of incorporation if you did a public search with respect to that documentation, yet

you find consumer reporting agencies taking that information and putting it into the consumer report, which is not accurate information.

The member is trying to deal with that under

section 8, where it puts a duty on the consumer reporting agency, where the individual becomes aware of that, to

have them redress this situation. The current legislation provides for a mechanism to get accurate information where you dispute that consumer report. What's wrong and what the problem is going to

be with this bill -- and I think the member's going to have to look at some serious amendments -- is in getting the consumer reporting agency to actually comply with the law, let alone taking them

to court.

What I've found in my experience with it, as limited as it is, is that they do not listen to you. They do not change the report. They don't even respond to you

in terms of getting that particular information. That has to stop. I know the member is putting that forth, saying if it's inaccurate information and you notify them, they've got to correct it. The

fact of the matter is they're not doing anything.

So where do we go to enforce this, let alone taking them to court or putting together an enforcement agency that is user-friendly for the person who wants to

make sure they've got accurate information on their consumer report? That is the challenge the member has to deal with, because in his bill he has a lot of good rules and standards in terms of

protecting the consumer and ensuring that third parties get accurate information on that consumer, but nowhere in the bill is there a mechanism to make sure the consumer reporting agency does what

it's supposed to do.

I put to the member from Davenport that if he doesn't look at that in terms of making sure the bill is going to work -- I don't know how he's going to do that.

He may have to go through the Ministry of Government Services to make that happen in terms of an enforcement mechanism, in terms of whether they can be used to report on an inaccurate consumer

report and make sure it's acted on. Quite frankly, the procedure is there already. I've tried to use it and I can tell you it's an absolute waste of time, because the fact is that they're not going

to listen to you anyway. Other than going to court, you're not going to get yourself an accurate consumer report. We have to look at it from that perspective to make sure it works.

My view is that, from a standards point of view, I agree with the member that consumer credit ratings have to be complete and accurate. Everybody here would

agree with that. The problem is, to whom do the consumer reporting agencies go to get that information, and how much work do they do to make sure that information is accurate? At the end of the

day, that information can be the deciding factor on whether you'll get any credit in the future or whether you're going to be targeted with bad information on that consumer report forever, because

they're not going to bother to change it.

I know that the member says, "If they have that information and they haven't changed it, they have to put a report on it that this information has been

challenged." That shouldn't be anything the consumer has to do. These consumer reporting agencies are in the business. They make big money from providing information on consumers. Why does the

consumer have to go forth and tell them, "This information's not accurate"? When you say to the bank, "Yes, you can get a consumer report on me, but make sure it's accurate," if they're getting

information that's not substantiated and they're not doing their job, whether it's a corporation or an individual consumer, the onus should be on these consumer reporting agencies. Otherwise, they

shouldn't be in business.

What we're doing here is trying to put some rules on them to say that they have some statutory guidelines on how to do their business. The problem is, if they

don't follow those guidelines, where's the remedy? That's the biggest problem with them. I guess we'll hear, if we get to go to public hearings on this. I hope the member pushes and uses his clout

in the caucus, since he's one of the senior members here, in terms of being able to get public hearings, that he'll actually get those. I hope he's going to use his substantial weight in caucus to

do that.

He's looking at me. I don't know, is that a yes or a no, or are you thinking about it? We want to get public hearings on this. Isn't that the goal? You're not

going to get third and fourth reading here today.

Mr. Ruprecht: Just remember this: This is the second time this bill is up this year.

Mr. Tascona: That's right. I know. This bill was up five years ago too. It was Joe Cordiano's bill.

The way I look at it is that this would be a very interesting exercise in terms of hearing from the consumer reporting agencies and from the financial

institutions in terms of what they think about this. I don't think any of them would dispute that when you want to lend money to somebody, you want to make sure you have accurate information on

that particular consumer, or on a corporation if that is the consumer, so you'll make the proper decision on whether you want to lend to them or not.

The remedy, in terms of this, if it's false information -- we're going on the fact that this may be bona fide false information. If it was a situation where it

was a fraudulent misrepresentation of the information, of course the consumer is going to want to know where that source is, to be able to go after it. What you'll find in that consumer report is

that there will be entries in terms of when information was offered with respect to that consumer. That's where they get their source, in terms of checking out whether it's accurate information or

not. That's the biggest problem for consumers in this particular area.

Quite frankly, when you go through Bill 38, it's a very complex area, in terms of dealing with consumer reporting and what's expected from the different

stakeholders in this industry. It's not something that people would readily understand. I think the member was talking about consumer ratings throughout his speech, in terms of how people are

ranked and whatever. That's the guts of what we're talking about here: accurate information. I think all the member is asking for is that there's accurate information on the consumer so that

consumer can be judged by a third party with respect to a financial rating, in terms of being able to be given credit. Nobody would dispute this.

The problem we've got here is that the industry is not working. So the member is putting forth some new rules and saying, "OK, here's what you're going to have

to do." The industry is not working because the fact of the matter is there is no gun that can be put to the heads of the people who are providing this information and who are participants with

respect to dealing with consumers. He's going to have to come forth with some kind of remedies that the government can actually enforce. I don't believe it's incumbent on the consumer to go to

court to get an accurate report on themselves; I think it's incumbent on the consumer reporting agencies. Probably there should be a mechanism in place where if they do not provide proper

information or they do not co-operate in providing that proper information, they can be penalized and treated like any other organization that breaks the law, and be taken and prosecuted through

the normal process.

There also needs to be an in-between mechanism so the consumer doesn't have to be the party that has to go directly to that consumer reporting agency, and the

consumer reporting agency doesn't listen to them. There may be a responsibility on the consumer to basically go to a government agency, maybe the Ministry of Government Services, and say, "Listen,

this is the attempt I've made to get this information accurate. Can you look into it?" -- because I know government services is a very active consumer protection ministry -- and have them deal with

the consumer reporting agency to correct that information. If they don't, then why wouldn't they be subject to prosecution when they're ruining someone's name or ruining someone's credit rating,

and there's no other avenue? They're getting paid to provide this information.

The fact of the matter is, the only way a financial institution can get a consumer report is on the consent of the consumer. The financial institution then

goes to the consumer reporting agency for that particular information. The standards that we have here really are questionable, in terms of how they go about that information, how they verify it

and in fact where they get it, in a day of privacy legislation and other restrictions in terms of getting personal information. So I hope the member has thought that through. I know he's seriously

listening to me here this morning in terms of those thoughts.

The other part of the equation is the remedy. He's going to have to think through, because he hasn't put it in his bill, how this is going to be enforced by

the consumer to make the government make these groups accountable and for the consumer to be able to get accurate information being presented about themselves.

I remember debating this bill when it was brought forth by the Minister of Economic Development, Joe Cordiano. He was very passionate about this in terms of

the need. I was dealing with a very similar situation in terms of a basic non-response from consumer reporting agencies, a brick wall or a stone wall being put in the face of consumers trying to

get their information made more accurate. Here we are, later down the road, and the government hasn't acted on this. They've brought it forth as a private member's bill to try to address an

industry that can affect people's lives very seriously.

I'm in support, obviously, of this bill, in terms of going forth with public hearings. This bill requires substantive consultation with all the stakeholders in

the industry. It probably requires substantive amendments if it's going to go forth, in terms of being meaningful as other than just a code of conduct for the consumer reporting agency. That's

essentially what it is right now: a code of conduct. We have to build on the accountability of this industry so that it's fair for consumers and they can get the proper credit rating they need.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my pleasure to have a few minutes to talk about Bill 38, which is a consumer protection bill. Of

course, nobody at all would be arguing against tightening up protections for consumers. We all know that there are lots of areas where consumers simply get ripped off, where people get ripped off

in the market, where people get ripped off by unsavoury people, companies, groups that are out there to be cutthroat, that are out there to prey on unsuspecting consumers, who either don't have a

good grip on what their rights are or are not in a position to be able to determine what those rights are in an easy way.

Interestingly enough, the first thing that came to mind when I thought about consumer rip-offs and people getting ripped off in the market are some of the

issues that my friend from Niagara Centre, Peter Kormos, has brought to this House: the issue of payday loans and how people are ripped off by those particular companies that prey on people who are

desperate and unable to make ends meet and so go to these payday loan institutions and are charged usurious interest rates just so that they can make ends meet. He has raised that in this House

many times, the issue of payday loans.

I think about one of the ones that many consumers rose up against not too many years ago, and that was the issue of negative billing and how people were fed up

with the way that companies who were practising negative billing were able to deal with that problem.

There's another one that bothers me, and that's the issue of advance billing. You get your bill for a particular utility or service, you get it this month and

you pay in advance for two months ahead. Maybe it's Christmastime or the holiday season, something's going on and you don't pay that bill until a little later. You pay the bill maybe a couple of

weeks later than you would have normally and the next thing you know you've got double the bill. You've got to backtrack and say, well, I thought I paid that bill. No, they're billing me now for

the two months that I've already had and now two months ahead. So your bill's twice as much. You really have to keep a sharp eye because the next thing you know, you've paid twice for the same

period of time. Again, you have to be careful.

I had an experience, speaking of utilities, not too long ago where I have a service that is bundled. I have my Internet, satellite and phone service all

bundled into one easy billing option. One of my services goes on the blink. After weeks and weeks of complaining and trying to get some redress from the company, I still didn't receive that service

back. Finally, in sheer frustration, after I had been on the telephone and my hubby had been on the telephone trying to get the service reinstated, we just gave up. Just in sheer frustration, I

said, "I'm not doing this any more. You've lost a customer."

I had been a customer of at least one of the three bundled companies since ever I even had that service and paid for it as an adult. For many years I was a

customer of that service. They lost me as a customer, all three did, because I was fed up. But what ended up happening? I was told that I had to pay $200 because I breached the contract because I

had contracted for certain period of time to be in a bundled service. Well, excuse me, but they breached the contract because they didn't provide the service, and after three weeks, I still

couldn't get the service back. They think they're actually going to get the $200 out of me, and they're not. I know that many people won't bother to fight it because they're afraid that $200 is

going to end up on their credit rating. There's going to be a note on their credit rating that says, "This person bilked our company of $200," with no details that there is a contractual dispute,

but it would only end up on my credit rating that I didn't pay that $200. You know what? I'm willing to take that risk because, as a consumer, I have the right to fight for the things that I think

are necessary to fight for, and if I'm paying for a darned service, I'm getting it. If you're not going to give me the service, I'm not going to pay for it. That's the bottom line. That's just an

illustration of how these kinds of issues can end up with the most unsuspecting person having these notes on their credit rating that indicate that somehow they've done something wrong.

I have to say, there's a lot in the bill that deals with those kinds of issues and I'm going to speak a little bit more fully to them in a little while. There

is no doubt that the way society is today, with technology and the concern about people's privacy and the sanctity of their personal and confidential records, those issues are extremely important

to people. This bill also deals with some of those issues.

In fact, speaking about privacy and the sanctity of records, even government backbenchers, even the one who sponsored this bill, would recognize that the

McGuinty government itself needs to do a better job on the sanctity of people's records and the quality of making sure people's records are kept safe and secure. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that

in the city of Hamilton a van was found in a parking lot with people's medical records sitting on the front seat. It had been sitting overnight in some parking lot, and people's medical records

were accessible in this van because somebody wasn't taking care of the store when it comes to making sure that those records were going from point A to point B, with no stops in between. Instead,

people's very personal test results from a lab were stuck on the front seat of some van overnight in some shopping centre. That's the kind of shoddiness the McGuinty government has to look at in

terms of its own obligations around consumers of government services. Again, in the Auditor General's report there's the issue of the driver's licence and the fraud that was going on there. The

government has to look at its own shop and make sure that its own obligations are being met to the consumers of government services.

Nonetheless, I wanted to talk a little bit more specifically about what this bill speaks to. There's no doubt that consumers should have, absolutely, security

around the safety of their records and the safety of what people have in terms of information about them. The parts of the bill that talk specifically about the duty to truncate vital information

is an important piece. I'm going to be supporting this bill because I think it has some important pieces to it, particularly that one. If someone -- a store or someplace where you're applying for

credit, for example -- is asking for your consumer information and there, lo and behold, on the information report is your other credit card number, your driver's licence number, your social

insurance number, all kinds of information about yourself that's then just transferred from one organization to another, from one company to another, that's unacceptable. There's no need for that.

In this day and age, there is no need for that kind of information to be travelling back and forth without your knowledge. You don't know that when you go to apply for credit, all of your personal

information is being transferred from one company to another; you have no idea. What this bill will do if it gets to committee and is passed by this House is that it will help to make sure that the

information isn't out there willy-nilly for anybody to have a look at.

The issue of truncation is I think an important one and it's addressed here. In this age of high-speed Internet and technology, with free-flowing information

that happens these days over the World Wide Web, this kind of bill is even more timely and this needs to be addressed. As we look through the different pieces of the bill -- and I spent some time

doing that -- there are issues around some things I've already talked about but also, as Mr. Tascona was talking about, issues around credit ratings, what makes up your credit rating, and the

obligations that should exist and don't right now that this bill hopes to put in that will explain what a person has that makes up their credit rating. Instead of just some number that indicates

your score on a particular measure, it's got to explain specifically where that number came from, where that score came from, what led to your getting that particular score, which companies or

organizations or credit agencies indicated that there was a problem with your credit rating, and I think that's extremely important.

The other issue, interestingly enough -- and I'll go back to my other thought in a second -- is bankruptcy, and the fact that this bill says that once you've

been discharged from a bankruptcy, they can't continue to indicate all the issues that led to the bankruptcy. Yes, they can indicate the day that you filed for bankruptcy; they can continue to

indicate the day that you were discharged from bankruptcy, but not all of the pieces of your credit history that led you to bankruptcy. Once you're discharged, you're discharged. That means you're

discharged from the bankruptcy. That means you're now able to go ahead and try to rebuild your credit rating.

I know people personally who have tried to do that. They've gone through a tough part of their life. Lord knows, in the beginning of the 1990s a lot of people

went through a tough part of their life. Lots of people lost small businesses; lots of people went into economic trouble and had to declare bankruptcy. But the problem was that once they got their

lives back on track, once they started to rebuild their job or career and they started to move forward again, one of the biggest barriers they faced was that even after having been discharged from

bankruptcy, they weren't able to get credit. So they weren't able to rebuild their credit rating and deal with car loans, leases, a basic credit card for emergencies or any other type of credit

because every time they attempted to get a credit card or attempted to perhaps lease a car or purchase a car on financing, they couldn't do it. The credit bureau was still providing information

that indicated all the outstanding loans from years and years before that were part of the bankruptcy.

I was glad to see that this is in the bill. I think it's extremely important that those times in people's lives when they get into trouble -- and people don't

like to declare bankruptcy. It's a huge, huge decision for somebody to do that. It's a very serious decision. It's not done in a willy-nilly fashion. However, it is done, and if it's done to try to

get the person a second chance to accomplish some of their goals and move forward in a positive way, then there's no way that once being discharged from that bankruptcy, they should then continue

to have that debt bogeyman hanging over their back or hanging on their credit rating. I'm glad that's in the bill.

One thing I was going to say earlier, though, is on the issue of the details as to what's making up your credit rating. People would assume that you can just

get that information, but you can't. You can't easily get the information to find out, if you're turned down for credit, why? Why are you turned down for credit? Your bureau: "Your credit rating

came back as too high-risk." "Well, what was in it?" "We're not obligated to disclose that." "What do you mean? It's my credit rating. Of course you should be obligated to disclose that." This is

an important piece in the bill. That's when you would find out that, lo and behold, they're using your pre-discharge bankruptcy information on your credit rating to prevent you from moving forward

in terms of getting credit once you've gotten your life back on track. All of those things I think are extremely important. It think it really makes a huge difference for people to be able to

understand not only their consumer information but their credit rating and what they can do to redress errors on their credit information or errors on their consumer report.

I would agree with a previous speaker that one of the problems with this bill is -- and I will support it, because I think it deserves to get to committee to

be improved and strengthened -- where is the onus? Where's the onus for accuracy? Where are the checks and balances? Where are the levers, the pieces of this bill that sanction credit companies or

that sanction consumer organizations from doing these kinds of things? How do we sanction them? How do we prevent them from continuing to have erroneous or inappropriate information? Where is the

damage to the consumer? Where does that get redress? I think the important thing that I would like to say to the mover of the bill is that when we get to the stage in committee where we go into the

details of this bill -- if it gets there; and I hope it does, because I think it's important -- we have to make sure there are penalties built in, that there is a system that prevents the abuse of

consumers, not just the way it is here but in much stronger terms.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'd like to start with something from Shakespeare. I might have the wrong play or the wrong role, but

I think it was in Macbeth that Laertes's father said to Laertes when he was leaving:

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;

"For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

"And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."

Those were good words for everybody to use, but in 2005 that is not the case for most people.

I've just had an experience with a lending institution that really concerns me. I've had a MasterCard for 20 years. I got it through the Bank of Montreal,

which has been my traditional banker; I'm not sure for what reason. I don't recall ever paying interest on the MasterCard for not having paid on time, because I pay it on time. They give you enough

time.

Because of my job here at the Legislature -- it's a new job, and the flights can really take up the dollars in your account very quickly -- three months ago I

got a new card from a different lender. I expected it to operate the same. I probably should have gone back and just got a double card from my own bank. In any case, I've now had two months of

payments on this card, and I thought I paid them the same way as I pay my MasterCard. I've been charged $84 interest on one of them. So I think there must be a gimmick on that card. I'm not going

to use it any more. I'm going to cut that card up and go back to putting everything on my single card, and then look after getting that in the future. I'm sure there's a gimmick there: Why am I

paying interest for two months in a row?

I think we have to look at lending institutions and credit cards, and these groups that lend money. We have to make sure that proper rules are being followed.

This is not connected to what we're talking about today, but I think consumers get taken right across the board because they don't have the sophistication, don't have the time, don't look into it

and automatically assume this is the way to go.

I'm just looking at

section 3 here: "No consumer reporting agency shall consider as a key factor in determining the credit score of a person the fact that

there is an inquiry record or that personal or credit information has been obtained." That point was made by the member from Davenport. I think it's extremely important. That's that soft report.

Credit organizations can up the interest rate by just using that, getting your credit report down low. That has to be one of the very important parts of this legislation.

Subsection 4(1): It seems to be obvious that, "Every person who refers to a consumer report in connection with any specified transaction or matter in which the

person is engaged shall ... inform the consumer that a consumer report respecting him or her has been or is to be referred to" -- I think that's very important -- "provide the consumer with the

name and address of the consumer reporting agency supplying the report; and ... upon the consumer's request, provide the consumer with a copy of the consumer report, by mail or personal delivery,

within 30 days of obtaining the report." This would seem almost common sense. This should be automatic, but I guess in today's world it is not.

We have legislation here that I think is very important to protect consumers, to get a level playing field between the very sophisticated lending organizations

and the sometimes unsophisticated consumers. I'm very pleased to stand today to support this legislation. I hope that the legislation will pass. It's a private member's bill. I'm anxious to see it

get done. It was good to hear that Minister Cordiano had brought this forward before. This is great legislation that can only make it a lot more transparent and a lot fairer for consumers out

there.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to thank the members from York West, Hamilton East, Ottawa-Orléans and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford who have

provided some very good points in terms of supporting this legislation. The member from Hamilton East especially indicated that we want to know specifically how consumer credit agencies are

determining the credit score of each one of us in our credit files.

Remember, each one of us has a credit file. Every breathing Canadian has a credit file. In this credit world, it is of utmost importance to know what our

credit score is. When you ask people -- the statistics indicate today, and I read them earlier -- only 17% have even requested to know what their score is. In fact, you can get two types of

information from the consumer credit bureau: One is your credit score, and the other is the report that indicates whether you are paying your credit back or if you're paying your loan back.

One is free; the credit score is not free. It costs you $21.95 to get your credit score. But let me suggest to you, try to get your credit score, because it is

like an albatross hanging around your neck whenever you need a loan or credit or even some employment. For some of us, this may be the case because we might be looking for a job. Even for that,

it's important to know what your score is before the person who wants to do the hiring finds out what the credit score is. It's better that you know ahead of time so you can guard against it. It's

better you know what's in your credit file.

We know that today, for instance, 79% of people are saying there are minor errors on their credit files, and of course there are 18% who say that these are so

serious that they cannot get a loan or credit even if they wanted to -- and those are just errors; this is not the reality.

Let me briefly point out to the member from Hamilton East, in terms of the credit score, that only a small percentage of people know that the actual act of

applying for credit -- just the application for it, not even getting it -- lowers the consumer credit score. Each time a consumer applies for credit, his or her score is lowered by 5% to 7%, just

to make the application, not even getting it. "An average consumer who has a score of 640 to 680" -- that's the medium range of most people -- "is particularly affected, as lowering the score by 20

to 25 points as a result of as few as three or four applications for credit may render such an individual unable to apply for a mortgage or otherwise, disqualifying him or her for favourable

rates."

Of course, you can go to a B lending institution later on if you've been disqualified by a bank. The bank, for that matter -- I have information here because I

was very careful in checking it out -- then gets -- no, we don't want to call it a kickback -- a commission from sending you somewhere else to get a loan with a higher interest rate. Can you

imagine that? Here is a mortgage specialist working for a bank sending you somewhere else to get a loan for your mortgage, and he's getting a payback, he's getting a commission, whatever you want

to call it, because he is sending you to a B loaning institution to get you a higher rate on your mortgage. Imagine that.

I hope that this bill will see the light of day, that we'll have discussion and debate and can make amendments in committee, because that's where the details

are going to be worked out.

One point is very important, and that is, in the United Kingdom, guess what? Applications for credit do not affect the composition of credit scores. We have a

jurisdiction that does not apply credit scores to the actual loan.

Finally, let me point out something that the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and the member from York West are interested in, and that is, how do we get

consumer reporting agencies to stay within the law? We've got a law that says, "Supply correct information on your credit score to consumers." That's the law, but what's the enforcement mechanism?

Do we have an enforcement mechanism that says, "If you don't comply with the law, you credit reporting agencies, there will be a penalty"? There should be a penalty because it's so important in

this credit-producing world today. We're all on credit.

It's important to look at that, and the bill addresses itself to some degree to that point. It says here that we provide "that consumers are entitled to a copy

of the report obtained by a third party...." So in case someone is asking for your credit, you should be able to get a copy of this report, because you may be turned down for credit by a bank or

another institution. If you are turned down, you want to know why. Right now you can't know why because the credit reporting agency pulls your file and consequently you have no access to that

information.

In short, there is much in this bill. We have to protect the consumer today. The consumer is crying out for us to do it. I hope you will support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: I could remind the member for Davenport that you have two minutes to reply. You don't have to use it.

Mr. Ruprecht: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I was looking at the watch. I want to be right on time because members are very

jealous in terms of watching the clock.

Let me point this out to you -- another very important item the member for Hamilton East pointed out in terms of bankruptcy. If you have ever gone bankrupt, as

it stands right now, it depends on the credit reporting agency. They put on the amount of money you owe each of the persons you got a loan from. Here you are: The court says, "OK, fine; you've gone

bankrupt. We will agree you can start off new," but at the same time, on your credit report, hanging around your neck is everybody who you aren't going to pay off. So all that detailed information

is on there.

I think she is making an excellent point when she says that when the court decides you can start fresh, that should be a fresh start. Of course, there should

be an indication saying you've gone bankrupt; we don't disagree with that. The indication should be that you've gone bankrupt, but don't at the same time list every item and every loan and every

amount on your credit score. That should not be the case.

Finally, one more item that's most important, and that is, if you should ever take a credit-granting company or a credit reporting agency to court, as the

member from York West pointed out, you have a major problem. Do you know why? Because as soon as you take that step, the credit reporting agency pulls your file. If you are in court for two months,

three months, four months or six months, you cannot get credit. You are persona non grata, which simply means you don't exist in terms of your credit file. We are simply saying in this bill that

this should not be the case. The consumer should be protected, and the consumer has a right. We are here to protect the consumer.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will first deal with ballot item number 13 in the name of Mr. Berardinetti. Mr. Berardinetti has

moved second reading of Bill 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I would request that this bill be sent to the standing committee on finance and

economic affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Berardinetti has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. Agreed?

Agreed.

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 14, standing in the name of Mr. Ruprecht. Mr. Ruprecht has

moved second reading of Bill 38. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Ruprecht.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I would kindly request that this bill see the light of day in general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ruprecht has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FUNDRAISERS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to rise today to advise this House of an outstanding fundraising effort for the Credit Valley

Hospital, coordinated through the Canada Pakistan Friendship Association.

Mr. Gul Nawaz spearheaded this effort with a dinner on Canada Day that I had the privilege of attending. The event has raised $271,720 for the new cancer

treatment ward at the hospital. Mr. Nawaz put together a remarkable team, and I would like to publicly recognize the contributions of the following individuals: Javid Husain, Mrs. Suraiya Khan,

Bashir Khan, Nasir Chatta, Mrs. Mubaraka Ahmed, Mrs. Zari Khan, Mrs. Ishrat Nasim, Shadab Khokhar, Rashid Khan, Zahid Khan, Asif Sherazi, Mrs. Seema Naseer, Khalid Bhatti, Hashim Najmuddin and

Barkat Ullah.

Mr. Nawaz is planning another dinner on January 21 next year to raise funds for the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan. The people whose lives will be

touched because of these two events will probably never know that it was through the efforts of Gul Nawaz and his dedicated team in the Pakistani community.

We owe them our heartfelt thanks for such a tangible demonstration of their compassion and their belief in giving back to their community.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): The region of Peel is one of the fastest-growing regions in the province. According to a report put

together by the Peel Regional Police, in the first seven months of 2005, 373 firearms were seized in Peel. That's a 6.6% increase over the same period in 2004.

I rise today to recognize the initiative of local youth in my riding of Brampton Centre. On November 26, young people in my riding held an all-day youth summit

on the issue of youth violence. Rather than giving up on youth in Brampton, they decided to tackle the issues of violence, bullying and gangs head-on. They put together a community forum with

politicians, community activists, the police, concerned youth and religious leaders to address the issue of violence within our own community. The youth of Brampton Centre are stepping up to the

plate to address issues that are resulting in the loss of lives of young people across this province.

I'm proud that, as a government, we are confronting rising violence by infusing our communities with 1,000 new police officers, 97 of whom will be hired in

Peel. These officers will allow the Peel Regional Police to continue concentrating on the reduction and prevention of crime. Maintenance of high visibility and proactive policing policies will help

us meet our goal of decreasing levels of criminality and lawless public behaviour.

Since this summit, these young people have embarked on forming a coalition that will combine resources within the community to combat the issue of escalating

violence and ensure that our communities are safe. I congratulate the Ontario Young Liberals for having the courage to take this initiative and start this community dialogue.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Innumerable people across Ontario are having problems with the MPAC assessment this year. This

has been of particular concern to owners of waterfront properties who have seen their assessments skyrocket.

There are many lakes scattered across my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, and it has a large number of waterfront properties. Waterfront property value

increases in Haliburton county are among the highest in the province, with an average increase of 35% to 40%. In Ontario, the average increase for waterfront properties is 25%.

The people who own these properties are not always the wealthy cottagers that people first think of. In fact, many of these property owners are people of much

more modest means. Some properties are owned by seniors who have made their cottage their permanent home. These seniors live on fixed incomes and can ill afford the massive increases in property

taxes that they have seen in recent years. Others have cottage properties that have been in their families for generations, and many of these individuals stand to lose their cottages because they

cannot afford to pay the property taxes.

My riding has the second-largest percentage of seniors in Ontario, and, as I have told this House before, many of these people have limited incomes. They are

being forced to deal with increased assessment costs, high energy costs and this government's irresponsible health tax. You have almost created a perfect storm, and I do not know how you expect

people to be able to remain in their homes with the challenges they are facing.

JEFFREY HAWKINS

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today to celebrate one of the unsung heroes of my community. Today, December 8, at the Hospital for

Sick Children, before a gathering of community mental health workers, service providers, psychiatrists, child welfare workers and hospital staff, Mr. Jeffrey Hawkins, the executive director of

Algonquin Child and Family Services, received the inaugural Elizabeth Manson award for community service in children's mental health.

Presented this morning by Mary Anne Chambers, the Minister of Children and Youth Services, this award recognizes "an outstanding person in the province of

Ontario who has dedicated their career to the continuous improvement of care for children and families challenged by mental health problems."

The award is named after Dr. Elizabeth Manson, a well-respected child psychiatrist who was instrumental in establishing the telepsychiatry hub at the Hospital

for Sick Children, the first provincial telepsychiatry program in Canada. Dr. Manson remains the director of the hospital's telepsychiatry program.

Jeffrey Hawkins is the executive director of the Algonquin Child and Family Services, a multi-service, multidisciplinary organization that responds to the

mental health, developmental, autistic and early intervention needs of children, youth and their families in Nipissing, Parry Sound, Muskoka and districts. He has served for over 20 years in the

children's mental health field and has served on numerous provincial and regional task forces and best practice working groups. He has worked diligently on the integration of services in our region

and has focused on family-centred services, wraparound services, restorative justice and telepsychiatry.

Congratulations to Jeff on this important recognition of the great work that he and all those at Algonquin Child and Family Services are doing for our region

and across the province.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm once again raising the mistake-prone conduct of the Attorney General with respect to his conduct

of the Criminal Code process to place restrictions on Karla Homolka following her release from prison.

With the exception of some electronic coverage of criticism of the Attorney General by the member for Niagara Centre and myself, Mr. Bryant's screw-ups and

failures have largely been ignored by the print media at Queen's Park. Essentially, they're giving his incompetence a free ride for reasons known best to them.

The essentially unreported truth is that the Attorney General botched the original hearing by not countering expert oral evidence provided by Homolka's

lawyers, opening the door to a successful appeal. With the cameras not running, he also failed to support the French and Mahaffy families' efforts to seek standing at the appeal and failed to seek

standing for his own officials.

This week, with his trademark bluster, he told the media -- which dutifully reported -- that he would have Homolka arrested if she entered Ontario. He then

qualified that, stating that he would seek a warrant for her arrest. Both of those comments were blatantly wrong and not based in law, and indicated either a willingness to direct police or

deliberately misinform the public. But he got away with it because of a compliant media.

The member for Niagara Centre and I will continue to point out this minister's failings through outlets such as broadcasts through this legislative channel. We

have a responsibility, as a loyal opposition, to make our best efforts, and you can count on us doing just that.

SHARE A CHRISTMAS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Today I rise in honour of a local group called Centre 55 in the Beach. Every year at this time, they

have a program called "Share a Christmas." Every year at this time, through the leadership of Bob Murdoch and his staff, the members of the community volunteer to help the needy and all the

neighbourhoods in the Beach.

They do this in a variety of ways: by accepting donations to supply fresh food, by identifying those people who are in need, by supporting the teenage angel

program, by planning for food drops throughout the area, by arranging transportation, and last but not least and probably most important, through their innovative program called "Adopt a

Family."

There will be a fundraiser this year on Tuesday, December 20, at 7 o'clock at St. John the Baptist Norway Church, 470 Woodbine Avenue at Kingston Road, to try

to obtain some much-needed funds. But I'm also here today to talk about their great need for volunteers. Even though this has been going for many years, there are always so many people needed,

especially in the period between December 18 and 22 when the food is brought in, when it is sorted, and finally on the 22nd when it is delivered to needy families. If you can help, the number is

416-691-1113, extension 24. The families in the Beach will thank you from the bottom of their hearts.

BÉNÉVOLES /

VOLUNTEERS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Lundi dernier était la journée internationale des bénévoles. Cette

journée est reconnue officiellement par les Nations Unies comme une occasion pour rendre hommage aux bénévoles du monde entier pour leur dévouement et leur contribution à

la société.

According to Ontario Network -- Canada Volunteerism Initiative, Ontario has the second-lowest volunteerism rate in the country.

Voilà pourquoi le gouvernement McGuinty accorde du financement aux conseils scolaires pour mettre les écoles à la disposition des organismes

à but non lucratif après les heures de classe.

This weekend I had the pleasure of participating in two events organized by volunteers in my riding. Last Saturday I was at the 25th anniversary of the Club

Optimiste de St-Eugène/Ste-Anne, an organization of volunteers dedicated to helping youth in their community. This international organization is represented in every municipality in

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

Lors de la guignolée de Rockland dimanche dernier, 130 bénévoles se sont divisé les quartiers de la municipalité et ont frappé

aux portes des citoyens pour faire la cueillette de 12 000 $ en argent comptant pour les paniers de Noël et de 15 000 denrées non-périssables pour la banque

alimentaire.

I am very proud that volunteering is alive and well in my community, and I thank all the volunteers across Ontario who dedicate themselves to the welfare of

others, not only during the holiday season but all year round.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I rise to acknowledge the wonderful work of the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. This program is unique

in that it combines college and high school programs so students can earn the basic part one of an apprenticeship and four high school co-op credits at the same time. This is clearly an exciting

and effective opportunity for apprentices in the province.

This program is doing great things in my riding of Northumberland. The OYAP cook basic apprenticeship program has partnered with local industry and with

Cobourg District Collegiate Institute East to put together a culinary kitchen program for students from grade 9 to grade 12. In fact, this past Monday, December 5, the culinary arts students at

CDCI East launched the official opening of a culinary kitchen in Cobourg. This was a truly terrific event, as Paul Macklin, the local MP, Mayor Peter Delanty and Dr. Tony Tilly, the president of

Fleming College, can attest.

I would like to note that the Ontario youth apprenticeship program is also in partnership with local industries in my riding, such as LeBlanc enterprises and

RONA, in order to create a skilled trade apprenticeship in the construction sector. This program is providing tremendous opportunities for young people in my riding of Northumberland, and I'm proud

of everyone involved. I wish the Ontario youth apprenticeship program much success today and in the future. I would like to congratulate the students of CDCI East in Cobourg for their hard

work.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): Last night I attended a rally at the Ajax community centre, where 1,300 people, primarily from

the ridings of Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge and Whitby-Ajax, came to protest the closure of pediatric and obstetric services at the Ajax-Pickering site of the Rouge Valley Health System. This decision

by the hospital was ill advised. I understand the anger of those in attendance and know that a functioning and reliable pediatrics and obstetrics department is part of the vision the community has

for its hospital.

The Ajax-Pickering birthing centre has served my family well. In fact, three of my grandchildren were born there, and my youngest daughter certainly hopes her

first baby will be delivered there later this month. I support my local hospital in its quest to provide quality health care to one of the fastest-growing communities in Ontario.

On behalf of the community, I express our gratitude to the doctors, nurses, technicians and health care professionals who make the Ajax-Pickering site such a

valuable community resource. I'm now in my 24th year of elected office serving Durham communities. I served the hospital as a politician, as a political representative and as a volunteer

fundraiser. I want my constituents to know that I stand with them to ensure that the hospital provides the services we need and that the desperately needed redevelopment is realized in a timely

fashion.

VISITORS

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to take this opportunity, although I know you're going

to rule me out of order, to welcome Adam Payler, a student from my riding who is shadowing me today, and as well, a group of young ladies who are here promoting the Miss G project. I want to

welcome both Adam and the Miss G project ladies here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I think you're clairvoyant: You are out of order. Welcome.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to introduce the concerned women who are here today

from the Miss G project for equality in education. We have representatives from the University of Western Ontario, the University of Waterloo, Laurier and the University of Toronto.

The mission of these young women is to get a women's studies course into the Ontario secondary school curriculum. We welcome them here today.

The Speaker: That also is not point of order. Welcome.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Todd Decker): Mrs. Jeffrey from the standing committee on general government presents the committee's report as

follows and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 206,

An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act / Projet de loi 206, Loi révisant la

Loi sur le régime de retraite

des employés municipaux de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Pursuant to standing order 72(b), the bill is therefore ordered for second reading.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent for the

routine proceedings "deferred votes" to be called immediately following oral questions today.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has asked for unanimous consent for the routine proceedings "deferred votes" to be called

immediately following oral questions today. Agreed? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. On Monday, I asked a question about this Liberal government's

approach to ensuring that people who use guns in connection with a crime remain behind bars. At that time, I specifically raised the case of a man who is charged with second-degree murder in the

shooting death of a car salesman, and who was already out on bail, facing several other charges in respect of gun crimes.

On Monday, your Attorney General said, "The practice and policy of crowns on all matters involving alleged gun crimes is ... that we try to ensure that people

who ought to be detained are detained." In this specific case, I believe the Attorney General's office has stated that the crown did oppose bail. After bail was granted, did the Ministry of the

Attorney General's officials ask for a review of the decision to grant bail to this man, and if not, why not?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm pleased